Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, 319 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, 319 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases · “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Murphy v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (caed, 2019-12-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
No. 6-1 at 3.) In Matheson, the Ninth Circuit found that the fact 14 that a plaintiff made three separate claims for damages in excess of $10,000 was insufficient to 15 illustrate that the total amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. 319 F.3d at 1091.
discussed Cited "see" Melton v. Philip Morris Inc.
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 303 F.3d 994 , 1002-03 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the Supreme Court implicitly overruled Duffield in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 , 121 S.Ct. 1302 , 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001)), vacated by 319 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (order).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v.
Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps
01-55321.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 7, 2003.
319 F.3d 1091
2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1184
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2109
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 5 cases
Pinpoint authority: #10,856 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (3) · C.D. California (2)

319 F.3d 1091

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUCE, FORWARD & HAMILTON, & SCRIPPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Luce, Forward & Hamilton, & Scripps, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-57222.

No. 01-55321.

D.C. No. CV-00-01322-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed February 7, 2003.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

1

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,[1] it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

Notes:

1

Judge Fisher was recused