2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Anchor | green | “a court must thus consider the complaint at the time of removal to determine if removal was appropriate in the first place.” | 3 |
| 2 | Vasura v. Acands | green | “if the removal was not proper in the first instance, the state court was never divested of jurisdiction and the federal court consequently has no jurisdiction to exercise.” | 3 |
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.