Legal Opinion

State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided November 21, 2012No. 12-60704PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

Appellants, manufacturers and distributors of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels, jointly removed this case to federal district court on the grounds that (1) the action was a “class action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B), or (2) the action was a “mass action” under the CAFA, § 1332(d)(ll)(B). The State of Mississippi, Appellee, then moved to remand the case to state court, and the district court granted the motion. Because we find that the suit qualifies as a mass action under the CAFA, we find removal to be proper.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  2. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Ex Rel. BarezSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Davis v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
  4. City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart Ex Rel. WomackMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Louisiana Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Commonwealth of KentuckyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
  2. Mississippi Ex Rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
  3. Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Company, et aCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
  4. In re Standard & Poor's Rating Agency LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
  5. Dana Nessel v. AmeriGas PartnersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API