Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.
- Decided
- December 7, 2005
- Docket
- 04-1140
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,624 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the fee-shifting provision in the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), does not create a presumption of an award of fees — Orange Blossom Ltd. Partnership v. Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (In Re Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc.) (2010)
- holding that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “absent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal” — Gentek Building Products, Inc., Steel Peel Litigation Trust, Formerly Known as Sherwin-Williams Claims Trust v. The Sherwin-Williams Company (2007)
- holding that a party may be liable under § 1447(c) “only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal” — MR Crescent City, LLC v. Draper (In Re Crescent City Estates, LLC) (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*134] CHIEF Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
A civil case commenced in state court may, as a general matter, be removed by the defendant to federal district court, if the case could have been brought there originally. 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (2000 ed. and Supp. II). If it appears that the federal court lacks jurisdiction, however, “the case shall be remanded.” § 1447(c). An order remanding a removed case to state court “may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”
Ibid.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.