Search for: "Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets" Results 1 - 11 of 11
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 May 2011, 1:47 am
Further, the court relied upon the meaning of “defendant” was only “original or true” defendants, relying upon Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 6:54 am
The key to the Court’s analysis was that section § 1453(b), permitting removal by “any defendant,” only includes “original” or “true” defendants based on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:13 am
Ohio) explained that “any” can only modify the word “defendant” as that word had been previously defined by the Supreme Court in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:41 pm by Wystan Ackerman
The Court also reasoned that: (1) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between “defendants,” “third-party defendants,” and “counterclaim defendants”; (2) other removal statutes in the bankruptcy and patent/copyright context allow “any party” to remove; and (3) the Court held in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. [read post]