row_id int64 0 363k | sentence stringlengths 20 1.98k | case_title stringlengths 31 132 | citation stringclasses 917 values | docket_number stringlengths 15 19 | source_field stringclasses 2 values | court stringclasses 0 values | year int64 2.01k 2.03k | source_file stringclasses 0 values | Predicted_Label stringclasses 6 values | source stringclasses 21 values | date_decided stringdate 2005-01-11 00:00:00 2025-06-30 00:00:00 ⌀ | url stringlengths 50 57 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
400 | Footnote 2 The record does not clearly establish whether the distributor passed along the cost of the tax to the Nation’s gas station. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
404 | See Kansas Form MF–52, available at http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/mf52.pdf (as visited Nov. 21, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
408 | Government,” “[n]et gallons of fuel sold for aviation purposes,” and “[n]et gallons of dyed diesel fuel received for the month,” the very deductions described in §79–3408(d), ibid. (emphasis added). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
412 | While a distributor may decrease its tax liability by engaging in transactions that entitle it to deductions, such as by selling or delivering fuel to an exempt entity like the United States, its tax liability is unaffected by sales or deliveries to nonexempt entities like the Nation. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
416 | A distributor’s subsequent delivery of fuel to the Nation or any other fuel retailer in Kansas has no effect on tax that it has already paid in a preceding month. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
420 | Footnote 5 Our recent discussion in Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
424 | S. 136 (1980), to an off-reservation tax on non-Indians. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
428 | Indeed, the Chickasaw dicta should apply a fortiori here; the upstream approach is less burdensome on the Tribe because it does not include the collecting and remitting requirements that typically, and permissibly, accompany a consumer tax. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
432 | SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 MARTIN V. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
436 | Argued November 8, 2005—Decided December 7, 2005 In removing petitioner Martins’ state-court class action to federal court on diversity grounds, respondents (collectively, Franklin) acknowledged that the amount in controversy was not clear from the face of the state-court complaint, but argued that this requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction was nonetheless satisfied under precedent suggesting that punitive damages and attorney’s fees could be aggregated in making the calculation. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
440 | Affirming, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the Martins’ argument that attorney’s fees should be granted on remand as a matter of course under 28 U. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
444 | Conversely, where no objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be awarded. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
448 | S. 400, 402 (per curiam), are absent here. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
452 | Christiansburg Garment Co. v. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
456 | When applying fee-shifting statutes, the Court has found limits in “the large objectives” of the relevant Act. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
460 | A court’s reasons for departing, however, should be “faithful to the purposes” of awarding fees under §1447(c). | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
464 | OPINION OF THE COURT MARTIN V. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
468 | FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORPORATION et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit [December 7, 2005] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
472 | An order remanding a removed case to state court “may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” Ibid. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
476 | Franklin removed the case to Federal District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
480 | Fifteen months later, the Martins moved to remand to state court on the ground that their claims failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
484 | The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand the case to state court. 251 F. 3d 1284, 1294 (2001). | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
488 | The Martins appealed again, arguing that §1447(c) requires granting attorney’s fees on remand as a matter of course. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
492 | In calculating the amount in controversy when it removed the case, Franklin had relied on case law only subsequently held to be unsound, and therefore Franklin’s basis for removal was objectively reasonable. 393 F. 3d, at 1148. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
496 | Compare, e.g., Hornbuckle v. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
500 | We hold that, absent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
504 | Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
508 | As they explain, we interpreted a statute authorizing a discretionary award of fees to prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights cases to nonetheless give rise to such a presumption. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
512 | In Piggie Park, we concluded that a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights suit serves as a “ ‘private attorney general,’ ” helping to ensure compliance with civil rights laws and benefiting the public by “vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” Ibid. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
516 | In this case, plaintiffs do not serve as private attorneys general when they secure a remand to state court, nor is it reasonable to view the defendants as violators of federal law. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
520 | In the absence of such reasons, we are left with no sound basis for a similar presumption. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
524 | Although Franklin is correct that the predecessor to §1447(c) was enacted, in part, because courts would otherwise lack jurisdiction to award costs on remand, see Mansfield, C. & L. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
528 | If the statute were strictly jurisdictional, there would be no need to limit awards to “just” costs; any award authorized by other provisions of law would presumably be “just.” We therefore give the statute its natural reading: Section 1447(c) authorizes courts to award costs and fees, but only when such an award is just. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
532 | Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14–16. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
536 | We have it on good authority that “a motion to [a court’s] discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.” United States v. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
540 | For these reasons, we have often limited courts’ discretion to award fees despite the absence of express legislative restrictions. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
544 | Zipes also explains how to discern the limits on a district court’s discretion. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
548 | But there is no reason to suppose Congress meant to confer a right to remove, while at the same time discouraging its exercise in all but obvious cases. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
552 | Assessing costs and fees on remand reduces the attractiveness of removal as a method for delaying litigation and imposing costs on the plaintiff. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
556 | Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
560 | For instance, a plaintiff’s delay in seeking remand or failure to disclose facts necessary to determine jurisdiction may affect the decision to award attorney’s fees. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
564 | S. 189, 196, n. 8 (1995) (“[A]s is always the case when an issue is committed to judicial discretion, the judge’s decision must be supported by a circumstance that has relevance to the issue at hand”). * * * The District Court denied the Martins’ request for attorney’s fees because Franklin had an objectively reasonable basis for removing this case to federal court. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
568 | It is so ordered. * In Fogerty, we did not identify a standard under which fees should be awarded. | Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | 546 U.S. 132 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1140 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/132/ |
572 | ROCHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. et al. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
576 | When federal-court jurisdiction is predicated on the parties’ diversity of citizenship, see §1332, removal is permissible “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [the] action [was] brought.” §1441(b). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
580 | Defendants removed the litigation to a Federal District Court, invoking that court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
584 | The District Court denied the motion, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the removal improper on the ground that Lincoln failed to show the nonexistence of an affiliated Virginia entity that was a real party in interest. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
588 | This Court stresses, first, that the existence of complete diversity between the Roches and Lincoln is plain and no longer subject to debate. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
592 | C. §1332(a)(1), to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
596 | Hence, the action qualified for the removal defendants effected. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
600 | But the Court is aware of no decision supporting the burden the Fourth Circuit placed on a properly joined defendant to negate the existence of a potential codefendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
604 | Nor are cases in which actions against a state agency have been regarded as suits against the State itself, see State Highway Comm’n of Wyo. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
608 | Bland, 2 How. 9, 14, or was joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, e.g., Walden v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
612 | In any event, the Fourth Circuit had no warrant in this case to inquire whether some other person might have been joined as an additional or substitute defendant. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
616 | The jurisdictional rule governing here is unambiguous and not amenable to judicial enlargement. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
620 | OPINION OF THE COURT LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
624 | C. §1441, which authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the action initiated in state court is one that could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court. §1441(a). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
628 | The defendants removed the litigation to a Federal District Court where, after discovery proceedings, they successfully moved for summary judgment. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
632 | Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
636 | The report stated that spores from toxigenic mold species were airborne in the apartment and had likely contaminated the carpeting and fabric surfaces throughout the dwelling. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
640 | Id., at 38–48, 64–74. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
644 | In state court, the Roches’ complaints named three defendants: Lincoln; INVESCO Institutional, an investment management group; and State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the alleged owner of Westfield Village. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
648 | C. §§1332(a)(1), 1441(a). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
652 | Lincoln, in its answer to the complaint, admitted that, through its regional offices, “it manages Westfield Village.” Id., at 137, 138. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
656 | After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
660 | Six days after the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but before final judgment was entered, the Roches moved to remand the case to the state court, alleging for the first time the absence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.[Footnote 3] Specifically, the Roches alleged that Lincoln “is not a Texas Corporation, but a Partnership with one of its partners residing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” App. 226.[Footnote 4] The District Court denied the remand motion, concluding that Lincoln is a Texas corporation and that removal was proper because the requisite complete diversity existed between all plaintiffs and all defendants. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
664 | Describing Lincoln as “the nominal party and ultimate parent company,” the appellate court suspected that an unidentified “Virginia subsidiary, be it a partnership, corporation or otherwise, rather than the Texas parent” was “the real and substantial party in interest.” Id., at 620–621. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
668 | Compare 373 F. 3d, at 620–622, with Plains Growers, Inc. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
672 | II The Court of Appeals correctly identified Lincoln as a proper party to the action, but it erred in insisting that some other entity affiliated with Lincoln should have been joined as a codefendant, and that it was Lincoln’s obligation to name that entity and show that its joinder would not destroy diversity. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
676 | Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Lincoln is a citizen of Texas and of no other State. 28 U. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
680 | C. §1332, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions “between … citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. §1332(a)(1).[Footnote 5] Since Strawbridge v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
684 | S. 523, 530–531 (1967) (explaining that complete diversity is not constitutionally required and upholding interpleader under §1335 based on minimal diversity, i.e., diversity between two or more adverse parties). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
688 | Hence the action qualified for the removal defendants effected. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
692 | Rule 17(a) directs that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) That Rule, as its text displays, speaks to joinder of plaintiffs, not defendants. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
696 | Given Lincoln’s admission that it managed Westfield Village when mold contaminated the Roches’ apartment, see supra, at 4, 7, it does indeed appear that no absent person, formally or practically, was “[n]eeded for [j]ust [a]djudication.” Fed. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
700 | See Navarro Savings Assn. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
704 | III Our decisions employing “real party to the controversy” terminology in describing or explaining who counts and who can be discounted for diversity purposes bear scant resemblance to the action the Roches have commenced. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
708 | S. 823, 830 (1969) (assignment for collection only, motivated by desire to make diversity jurisdiction available, falls within the “very core” of §1359); Little v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
712 | See, e.g., State Highway Comm’n of Wyo. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
716 | South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
720 | Bland, 2 How. 9, 14 (1844), or was joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, e.g., Walden v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
724 | Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 122 (1874). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
728 | Congress, empowered to prescribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes has specified that a named party’s own citizenship does not determine its diverse status. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
732 | For cases of the kind the Roches have instituted, Congress has provided simply and only this instruction: “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Ibid. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
736 | Complete diversity existed. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
740 | Footnote 1 Defendants below, petitioners here, presented a second question in their petition for certiorari: Can a limited partnership be deemed a citizen of a State on the sole ground that the partnership’s business activities bear a “very close nexus” with the State? | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
744 | S. 185, 189, 192–197 (1990) (for diversity purposes, a partnership entity, unlike a corporation, does not rank as a citizen; to meet the complete diversity requirement, all partners, limited as well as general, must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side). | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
748 | Its status as a Wisconsin citizen for diversity purposes is not currently contested. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
752 | Brief for Respondents 3, and n. 1. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
756 | That matter is no longer debated; at oral argument, counsel for the Roches acknowledged that Lincoln is a Texas corporation. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
760 | Footnote 6 Although we have not addressed the issue, several lower courts have held that the presence of a diverse but in-state defendant in a removed action is a “procedural” defect, not a “jurisdictional” bar, and that the defect is waived if not timely raised by the plaintiff. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
764 | S. 387, 395–396 (1938) (original jurisdiction improper where State was acting as trustee for its citizens); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
768 | Further, the Roches alleged that Lincoln ignored numerous mold-related maintenance requests they “personally” made to Lincoln, id., at 29, 55, inquiries that, if followed up, might have prevented or lessened their injuries. | Lincoln Property Co. v. Roch, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | 546 U.S. 81 (2005) | Docket No. 04-712 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 29, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/81/ |
772 | The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. | Maryland v. Blake, 546 U.S. 72 (2005) | 546 U.S. 72 (2005) | Docket No. 04-373 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 14, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/72/ |
776 | Decided October 31, 2005 Per Curiam. | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
780 | The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated Espitia’s constitutional right to represent himself as established by the Supreme Court in Faretta [v. | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
784 | A necessary condition for federal habeas relief here is that the state court’s decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
788 | Morris, 767 F. 2d 1443, 1446 (CA9 1985)); ibid. (“Faretta controls this case”). | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
792 | Lane, 718 F. 2d 226, 231 (CA7 1983) (similar). | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
796 | The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | 546 U.S. 9 (2005) | Docket No. 04-1538 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | October 31, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/9/ |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.