Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Barbour v. International Union
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided February 4, 2010No. 08-1740Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHamilton, Senior Circuit Judge
Over seventeen years ago, in McKinney v. Board of Trustees of Mayland Community College, 955 F.2d 924 (4th Cir.1992), this court allowed two defendants, who were not served within thirty days of the date the first three defendants were served, to join a removal petition that was filed by the other ten defendants within thirty days of the date the first three defendants were served. Id. at 926, 928. In so allowing, we rested our decision on the premise that, in removal cases involving multiple defendants, a removal petition must be filed within thirty days of the date the first-served…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. SheetsSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Antonio Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co Shell Oil Company, D/B/A Shell Chemical Company, and Shell Agricultural Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.