Cluster 163662
green
· 66 citation events
across 12 courts.
Showing the 45 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Despite our authority to look beyond the complaint, the plaintiff remains the master of his claims and may choose to have his claims heard in state court by avoiding claims based on federal law.”); Caterpillar Inc, 482 U.S. at 399 (“[A] defendant cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal law, ther…
“Despite our authority to look beyond the complaint, the plaintiff remains the master of his claims and may choose to have his claims heard in state court by avoiding claims based on federal law.”
green
Mowry v. United Parcel Service (2005)
Id. (“Neither inquiry requires a court to interpret, or even refer to, the terms of a CBA.”).
“Neither inquiry requires a court to interpret, or even refer to, the terms of a CBA.”
The removing party carries the burden “to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); see also A.L. by & through Luchsinger v. Pitts, No. 21-cv-03481-CMA-STV, 2022 WL 3593739 , at *2 (D.
green
William Patrick Jordan v. Kay Lyn Williams (2026)
Lopez v. Cantex Health Care Centers, II, LLC, No. 23-2038, 2023 WL 7321637 at *5 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (citing Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Celli v. Shoell, 40 F.3d 324, 327 (10th Cir. 1994) (“If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
green
Leanna King v. ProFrac Services LLC (2025)
“The purpose of the Employment Security Act is to set up a system of public employment offices and an unemployment compensation fund to assist Oklahoma’s unemployed citizens.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Okla.
citing Okla. Stat. tit. 40 § 1–102(1)
green
Heuer v. United Rentals (North America), Inc. (2025)
The removing party carries the burden “to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); see also A.L. by & through Luchsinger v. Pitts, No. 21-cv-03481-CMA-STV, 2022 WL 3593739 , at *2 (D.
green
Boxum v. Tokyo Electron America (2025)
Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004); Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (emphasizing the burden is on the party opposing a motion to remand to state court to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence).
emphasizing the burden is on the party opposing a motion to remand to state court to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); Resendiz v. Progressive Direct Ins.
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); Resendiz v. Progressive Direct Ins.
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Supreme Court has ‘underscored the point that § 301 cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law.’” (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123 )).
“[T]he Supreme Court has ‘underscored the point that § 301 cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law.’” (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123 )
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 24 Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding a defendant failed to meet its burden in establishing federal jurisdiction when the defendant removed to federal court). 25 Penteco Corp. Ltd.
holding a defendant failed to meet its burden in establishing federal jurisdiction when the defendant removed to federal court
green
Myles v. Walmart Inc. (2023)
“The plaintiff is considered the ‘master of the claim[.]’” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
citation and internal quotation marks omitted
green
Bekkem v. McDonough (2023)
“If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Medesimo Tempo v. Skull Valley Health Care (2022)
Corp., 440 F.3d 1227 , 1232 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003)). raises federal issues.19 The well-pleaded complaint rule “makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”20 On its face, the Petition in this case does not raise a federal question.
green
Serna v. Cooksey (2021)
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332; Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (federal jurisdiction must be evident from the face of the complaint).
federal jurisdiction must be evident from the face of the complaint
green
Serna v. Cooksey (2021)
See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 953 (10th Cir.2008)(“[A]ccording to this and most other courts, the defendant is required to prove jurisdictional facts by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.””): Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003)(“[W]e emphasize that the burden is on [the defendant] to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”); Chavez vy.
green
KHC Enterprises, LLC v. KC Hemp Company, LLC (2020)
Inc., 762 F.3d 1130, 1133 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 4 Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 5 Nicodemus v. Union Pac.
citation omitted
green
United States v. New Mexico Environment Department (2020)
The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that, in cases where jurisdiction is based on a federal question, “the federal question giving rise to jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (explaining the well-pleaded complaint rule also means federal-question jurisdiction may not be predicated on a defense that raises federal issues).
green
Desmet v. CSAA Insurance Exchange (2019)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003).
green
Keller v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003).
green
Von Downum v. Synthes (2012)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Potts v. Citifinancial, Inc. (2012)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.2003).
When a party files a motion to remand challenging the removal of an action from state court, the burden is on the removing party “to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1190 (10th Cir.2003) (citing United States ex rel.
green
Flowers v. Life Insurance Co. of North America (2011)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Lafalier v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2010)
See McPhail v. Deere, 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir.2008); Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Memorial Health System v. Aetna Health, Inc. (2010)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Williams v. National Football League (2009)
Although the plaintiff did not identify the specific sections of the Act that Boeing violated, the court observed that “within the sections he cite[d]” was a provision providing that “[n]o disciplinary action, except for a temporary suspension or a temporary transfer to another position, may be taken by an employer against an employee based on a positive test result unless the test result has been confirmed by a second test.” Id. at 1193 (quotation omitted).
quotation omitted
green
Geter v. St. Joseph Healthcare Systems, Inc. (2008)
“Indeed, it is the burden of the party opposing remand ‘to show jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003); citing Nat’l Inspection & Repairs, Inc. v. George S. May Int’l Co., 202 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 (D.Kan.2002)).
green
Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp. (2006)
First, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that “the federal question giving rise to jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint.” 4 Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corporation (2006)
First, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that "the federal question giving rise to jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint." 4 Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Clark v. Meijer, Inc. (2005)
“If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.2003)(citing United States ex rel.
green
Salman v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2005)
“If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence,” and federal courts will “presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking *1237 federal jurisdiction.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193, 1194 (10th Cir.2003).
green
Mathis v. Skaluba (2004)
We, then, review the district court’s decision denying remand and dismissing the Mathises’ claims de novo, see, e.g., Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.2003) (reviewing decision denying remand); Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1222 (10th Cir.2002) (reviewing dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (6)), and its decision denying the Mathises’ Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., LaFleur v. Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1153 (10th Cir.…
green
Olsen v. Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc. (2004)
“Under the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule, the plaintiff is considered the ‘master of the claim’ and thus the federal question giving rise to jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir.2003)(quoting Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207 (10th Cir.2001)).
green
Hatcher v. Collins (2003)
“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction.” Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
green
Ritter v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)
See Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189 , 1192–93 (10th Cir. 2003). existence of any intentional tort.3 The only time the Notice even references an intentional harm is in the context of premises liability under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (“Act’).
See Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2003).
green
Elliott v. Tulsa Cement, LLC (2019)
See Karnes , 335 F.3d at 1193 -94 .
green
Jaramillo v. Frewing (2018)
See Karnes v. Boeing Co. , 335 F.3d 1189 , 1192 (10th Cir. 2003).
green
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Morgan (2017)
See Karnes v. Boeing Co. , 335 F.3d 1189 , 1193-94 (10th Cir. 2003).
See Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003).
green
Pro Axess, Inc. v. Orlux Distribution, Inc. (2005)
See Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2003); Soma Med.
See Smolarek v. Chrysler Corp., 879 F.2d 1326, 1332 (6th Cir.1989) (en banc); Tisdale, 25 F.3d at 1314 (“state right not to be discriminated against by a labor organization” not preempted); see also Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir.2003) (no preemption of union member’s complaint alleging violation of state statute requiring companies’ anti-drug policies to be applied uniformly); Austin v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec.
See, e.g., Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (10th Cir.2003) (“[Because plaintiffs often attempt to avoid federal jurisdiction under § 301 by artfully pleading their claims, federal courts look beyond the allegations of the complaint to determine whether the wrong complained of actually arises in some manner from a breach of the defendants’ obligations under a CBA.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)); Milne Employees Ass’n v. Sun Carriers, 960 F.2…
green
Kevin Williams v. National Football League (2009)
Lueck, 471 U.S. at 211-12 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added); see Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123 (cautioning that section 301 “cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law”); see also Karnes, 335 F.3d at 1194 (noting that “the fact that the CBA incorporated Boeing’s anti-drug policy is irrelevant because ‘§ 301 does not grant the parties to a [CBA] the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law’” (…