Coco v. Altheimer
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
1Opinion of the Court
PORTERIE, District Judge.
Of the three grounds offered by plaintiff for remanding this case to the state court, only one — that the removal petition was not timely filed — has been urged upon oral argument and on brief.
The facts: Service of the petition on the curator ad hoc for the Stoops heirs (the only defendants who have petitioned to remove) was made on December 10, 1941. On December 31, 1941, the state court, upon motion of the Stoops heirs for an extension of time, entered the following order:
“It is ordered that movers named in the foregoing motion be granted an additional 30 days from…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad v. DaughtrySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Nichols v. StevensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Austin v. GaganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1889
- Greeley v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. BaerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- Ransom v. Sipple Truck Lines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1943
- Merz v. DixonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1951
- Lopez ex rel. Reyes v. TrujilloDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2012