Legal Opinion
Kingman v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided November 25, 1981No. Civ. 80-1153-BPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
CYR, District Judge.
The complaint initiating this action in state court was served on the defendant September 5, 1980. On October 2, 1980, the action was removed to this court, whereupon plaintiffs moved ex parte for remand, due to alleged formal defects in the removal petition. On October 23,1981, defendant moved to amend its removal petition.
Consideration must be given first to the formal sufficiency of the original petition for removal in light of three allegedly fatal defects assigned by plaintiffs: first, that the petition does not contain a “statement of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- William H. Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1968
- Temple Hoyne Buell v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- Willie C. Covington v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America and B. W. Iley, D/B/A Iley Poultry PlantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- H. B. Ardison and Johnnie Wilson v. Usbaldo O. VillaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hawaii v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2006
- Christenson Media Group, Inc. v. Lang Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2011
- Camacho v. Cove Trader, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
- Heller v. Allied Textile Companies Ltd.District Court, D. Maine · 2003
- Rafter v. StevensonDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.