Legal Opinion
Wise v. Bolster
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided January 29, 1940No. 117PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOWEN, District Judge.
1. Referring first to the plaintiffs’ contention that defendants have waived their right of removal, the rule is that merely filing an answer or doing nothing more than to make an appearance in the state court before the expiration of the time for removal does not waive that right nor prevent the defendant later within the time otherwise allowed from filing a petition for removal. Simkins Federal Practice (1934 Edition) page 1012, sec. 1142; 54 C.J. 210, 211, secs. 5, 6. Where a defendant filed at the same time a demurrer to the complaint in the state court and his…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Penn Central Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania Ex Rel. SchnaderSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Anderson v. WattSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Ex parte WhiteDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1915
- Tsoi Sim v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Seegers v. StrzempekDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1957
- Furman v. General Dynamics Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- Murphy v. Travelers InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Humphrey v. Fort Knox Transit Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1945
- Ellis v. Southeast Construction CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.