cited Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. Ketroser v. Mayo Foundation See Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F.3d 982 , 987 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 877 , 124 S.Ct. 277 , 157 L.Ed.2d 139 (2003).

discussed Cited "see" DAVID GRIFFITH, PLAINTIFF—APPELLANT v. CITY OF DES MOINES, DEFENDANTS—APPELLEES (2×) See Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F.3d 982 , 986 n. 2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 277 , 157 L.Ed.2d 139 (2003).

cited Cited "see" David Griffith v. City of Des Moines See Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F.3d 982 , 986 n.2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 277 (2003).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sawyer v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Overlook Gardens Properties, LLC v. ORIX USA, L.P., 927 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290 , 1293 (11th Cir.) (“[R]emoval statutes should be construed narrowly, with doubts resolved again…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." South Dallas Water Authority v. Guarantee Co. of North America, USA There can be no doubt but that “[fjederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted); see also Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290 , 1293 (11th Cir.) (“[R]emoval statutes should be construed narrowly, with doubts resolved against removal.”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 877 , 124 S.Ct. 277 , 157 L.Ed.2d 140 (2003); University…