Articles on Removal

Removal bid founders for lack of Article III standing By Michael R. Lied Federal Civil Practice, June 2018 The Seventh Circuit provided a useful reminder about removal of a case to federal court in Collier and Seitz v. SP Plus Corporation, holding that it is improper for a defendant who removes a case based on federal question jurisdiction to subsequently file a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
Removal in parentage cases after Fisher v. Waldrop By Nanette A. McCarthy & Carol Jones Family Law, January 2007 Joan and Richard had one child—Samantha—during their relationship.
Eckert revisited: The Supreme Court’s review of Collingbourne and the Second District Appellate Court’s application of the law of removal By Steven N. Peskind Family Law, February 2003 Recently the Illinois Supreme Court granted a petition for leave to appeal filed by Soryia Collingbourne, seeking to review the reversal by the Second District Appellate Court of an order granting her leave to remove her son Tyler to the State of Massachusetts.
Recent cases By Barry H. Greenburg Family Law, May 2001 Summaries of the recent cases of In Re the Marriage of Drury, In Re Petition of Mary Klak, In Re Marriage of Carter, In Re Shaddle, In re Adoption of D___, In Re Marriage of Lehr, In Re Marriage of Gattone, In Re J.P., In Re Marriage of Beerbridge, In Re the Marriage of Buck, In Re Marriage of Didier, In Re the Marriage of Petersen, In Re Donath v. Buckley, In Re Cerven and In Re Troy S. and Rachel S.
Fifth Circuit holds that a demand letter constitutes “other paper” for purposes of 28 USC § 1446(b) which requires defendant to remove to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction within 30 days of receiving the letter By Michael Todd Scott Corporate Law Departments, January 2001 In Addo v. Globe Life and Accident Ins. Co., No. 99-60277 (5th Cir., Oct. 16, 2000), the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether removal was timely after the defendant received a letter after the case was filed indicating that the plaintiff would seek damages exceeding $75,000.

Select a Different Subject