Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. Anchor | green | “the well-established general rule is that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, and nothing filed after removal affects jurisdiction.” | 13 |
| 2 | Perez v. Arcobaleno Pasta MacHines, Inc. | green | “if after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the state court.” | 3 |
| 3 | Brown v. Porter | green | “a defendant may remove an admiralty case if there is an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction-i.e., a basis other than admiralty, such as complete diversity of citizenship with the requisite amount in controversy under 28 u.s.c. 1332 (a).” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.