Briddelle v. T & J FOODS, INC.
District Court, D. Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DAVIS, District Judge.
I have observed that:
The decades-old struggle of many plaintiffs to try actions in state court, against the vigorous efforts of many defendants to remove eases to federal court for trial, has never been an evenly-matched contest. This is partly because plaintiffs have the benefit of (1) a presumption against federal jurisdiction, which is supplemented by the (2) “general principle that the removal statute is to be strictly construed.” Sun Buick, Inc. v. Saab Cars USA, Inc., 26 F.3d 1259, 1267 (3d Cir.1994). See Murray v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 870 F.Supp.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Chicago v. International College of SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Company, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Sun Buick, Inc. v. Saab Cars Usa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Murray v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1994
- Hill v. General Motors Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sledz v. Flintkote Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Chandler v. Corizon HealthDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2023
- The County Commission of Fayette County, West Virginia v. Gadsden, Gaillard, and West LLCDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2022