Swartz v. Cleveland Worm & Gear Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
HULEN, District Judge.
This cause, originating in the State court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, removed here, now calls for ruling on motion to remand. Decision will turn on whether defendant’s removal action was timely. The record made on the present motion is confusing. There is disagreement between the parties as to the record of the State court in important particulars. Defendant has failed to comply with Section 1446, Title 28, U.S.C.A., in that all papers served upon it were not attached to the removal petition and some that were attached were not complete in that they failed to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. MosherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Ford v. Roxana Petroleum Corp.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1929
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kingman v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.District Court, D. Maine · 1981
- Hollenbeck v. Outboard Marine Corp.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2001