Four Aces Mobile v. Lundahl, 166 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Four Aces Mobile v. Lundahl, 166 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scott v. Superior Court of Bulloch County (gasd, 2022-03-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Scott v. Superior Court of Bulloch County
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eckert v. Camp, 166 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1998) (Table) (“At that time, even though the fee had been fully paid, pursuant to the terms of the statute, the standards of § 1915 continued to apply.”); Powell v. Hoover, 956 F. Supp. 564, 567 (M.D.
cited Cited "see" O Centro Espirita Beneficente União Do Vegs in U.S. v. Duke
D.N.M. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Karnes v. SCI Colo. Funeral Servs., Inc. , 166 F.3d at 347 .
discussed Cited "see" Harper v. Mancos School District Re-6
D. Colo. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harjo v. Varnum Public Sch., 166 F.3d 347 (10th Cir.1998) (no liberty interest invoked when plaintiff does not dispute the substantial truth of the party’s statements but only the interferences to be drawn therefrom).
Four Aces Mobile
v.
Lundahl
98-4075.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Dec 16, 1998.
166 F.3d 347
Unpublished

166 F.3d 347

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

FOUR ACES MOBILE HOME ESTATES; Safety Investment
Corporation; State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Holli LUNDAHL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-4075.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 16, 1998.

1

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, C.J.

2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

3

MURPHY.

4

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

5

Holli Lundahl appeals the district court's dismissal of Lundahl's Notice of Removal and Motion to Consolidate. Finding Lundahl's appeal utterly without merit, this court affirms.

6

Lundahl sought to remove to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, several actions arising in California state court. After extensive review of Lundahl's removal notice, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed actions. The district court went on to note that although lack of subject matter jurisdiction would normally mandate a remand of the action to state court, such a remand would be inappropriate here because the actions removed were no longer pending in any California court. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the action in its entirety.

7

Upon review of the Lundahl's briefs and contentions, the district court's Orders, and the entire record on appeal, this court AFFIRMS, for substantially those reasons set out in the district court's Orders dated March 24, 1998, and April 15, 1998. Lundahl's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix is DENIED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3