State of Nebraska, Ex Rel., Department of Social Services Internal Revenue Service v. David A. Bentson (1998)
green
· 48 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 34 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199920122026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Horne v. Internal Revenue Service (2016)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir. 1998).
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A defendant’s power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court’s power to hear it.”).
“A defendant’s power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court’s power to hear it.”
green
Timothy Demartini v. Michael Demartini (2020)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1998); Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 799 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir. 1986).
green
Cox v. United States Department of Agriculture (2015)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679-80 (9th Cir. 1998).
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir.1998) (express deprivation of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 6305 ).
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir.1998) (express deprivation of subject matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 6305 ).
green
Lively v. Wild Oats Markets (2006)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Peninsula Commc’ns., Inc., 287 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2002).
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Peninsula Commc’ns., Inc., 287 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2002).
green
Jagdishbhai and Hansaben Patel v. Del Taco, Inc. (2006)
Dep’t of Social Services v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998).
green
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc. (2006)
Dep’t of Social Services v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1998). [3] A petition for removal under § 1443(1) must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92, 794-804 (1966) and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28 (1966).
green
Adam v. Hawaii (2005)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.
green
Inland Valley Development Agency v. Patel (2004)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
green
Special Investments Inc. v. Aero Air Inc. (2004)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir.1998); Gallea v. United States, 779 F.2d 1403, 1404 (9th Cir.1986). 3 Of course, a district court can decide an issue of personal jurisdiction before it decides an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, or, at least, may do so where that will dispose of the case See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 587-88 , 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1572 , 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999).
green
Special Investments Inc. v. Aero Air Inc. (2004)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir.1998); Gallea v. United States, 779 F.2d 1403, 1404 (9th Cir.1986). .
green
Stock v. Commissioner (2003)
We review de novo, Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
green
State Engineer of Nevada v. South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians (2003)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.1998) (“A defendant’s power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court’s power to hear it.
green
State Engineer, of the State of Nevada Water Commissioners, of the Sixth Judicial District Court v. South For… (2003)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.1998) ("A defendant's power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court's power to hear it.
green
WFS Financial, Inc. v. Khashan (2003)
Servs. v. Bentson 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and order awarding attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion, Dahl v. Rosenfeld, 316 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.2003).
green
Hawaii v. Brown (2002)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch.
green
Hawaii v. Jim (2002)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
green
Carpenter v. Commissioner (2002)
See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1); Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998); Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.1985).
green
Humetrix, Inc., a California Corporation Bettina Experton, Doctor v. Gemplus S.C.A., a French Corporation Guy… (2001)
Serv. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (1998) (noting that removal statute "regulates jurisdiction and procedure" and therefore may be applied "to cases pending at the time of its enactment"). 61 Where, as here, Congress makes clear its intent to apply an amendment of a procedural provision retroactively, courts must honor and effectuate that intention.
noting that removal statute "regulates jurisdiction and procedure" and therefore may be applied "to cases pending at the time of its enactment"
green
Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A. (2001)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (1998) (noting that removal statute “regulates jurisdiction and procedure” and therefore may be applied “to cases pending at the time of its enactment”).
noting that removal statute “regulates jurisdiction and procedure” and therefore may be applied “to cases pending at the time of its enactment”
green
California ex rel. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District v. United States (2000)
Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that the federal removal statute allows a covered person to remove an action to district court based on the defense of sovereign immunity).
green
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. United States (2000)
Dep't of Social Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the federal removal statute allows a covered person to remove an action to district court based on the defense of sovereign immunity).
holding that the federal removal statute allows a covered person to remove an action to district court based on the defense of sovereign immunity
green
Moreland v. Van Buren GMC (1999)
See Bentson, 146 F.3d at 679 (“A defendant’s power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court’s power to hear it....
“A defendant’s power to remove a case to federal court is independent of the federal court’s power to hear it.... Once a case is properly removed, a district court has the authority to decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.”
green
State Engineer of Nevada v. South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians (1999)
Id. (“Once a case is properly removed, a district court has the authority to decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.”).
“Once a case is properly removed, a district court has the authority to decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.”
green
Simpson v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC (2024)
Dept. of Social Services v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting the inclusion of a federal agency gave rise to the case’s removability, and the dismissal of the agency destroyed subject matter jurisdiction, necessitating remand of the remaining claims to state court); see also Kim v. Queen’s Med.
noting the inclusion of a federal agency gave rise to the case’s removability, and the dismissal of the agency destroyed subject matter jurisdiction, necessitating remand of the remaining claims to state court
green
Vargas v. Freeman CA1/3 (2024)
Dept. of Social Services v. Bentson (9th Cir. 1998) 146 F.3d 676, 678 [order dismissing federal defendant, which preceded remand of state law claims to state court, was appealable].) Vargas also contends his proposed amended complaint falls within an exception to claim preclusion for a prior action seeking declaratory relief.
green
Cabalce v. VSE Corp. (2013)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998). .
green
Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co. (2004)
Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998); Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam Auth., 145 F.3d 1180 , 1184 n. 6 (10th Cir.1998) (deeming the amendment a legislative reversal of International Primate).
green
Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. v. Allied Technology Group (1999)
Trust, 463 U.S. 1 , 24 n. 27, 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 2854 n. 27, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (noting that dismissal of the claim is a district court’s appropriate course of action where the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction prevents it from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over it); Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that district court “simply gave effect to the jurisdictional realities” when it dismissed claim over which it lacked subject matter juri…
green
California v. NRG Energy Inc. (2004)
See Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.1998).
Docket #1; see State of Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that Section 1442 was amended in 1996 to expressly allow for removal by federal agencies).
explaining that Section 1442 was amended in 1996 to expressly allow for removal by federal agencies