Today's six opinions, in brief:
1. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Carpenter: A case about workers' compensation and insurance under Vermont State law, returning to the CA2 after the Vermont Supreme Court declined to answer questions previously certified.
2. India.Com v. Dalal: Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in a sort of wierd contract case, including a number of district court opinions at odds with one another.
3. United States v. Weisser: Interesting decision rejecting a criminal premised on the complaint that trial exhibits critical to a true appeal on the merits were destroyed in the September 11 attack.
4. Serrano v. Fischer: Affirming denial of habeas relief to petitioner claiming 6th Amendment violation when he wasn't allowed to speak to his attorney during certain recesses in his testimony.
5. Shapiro v. Logistec USA: As the court explains:
We confront here the issues of 1) under what circumstances we may review a district court's order remanding a diversity action to state court, 2) when a district court may reconsider its own remand motion, and 3) when, if ever, a plaintiff will be deemed to have waived his objection to removal by filing his motion for remand after the statutory period for doing so has run. We conclude, inter alia, that a) the remand granted by the district court in this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which prohibits a defendant from removing an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction if any defendant "is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought," b) such a remand is not covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it is not based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or some other defect timely raised, c) therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which would bar both reconsideration by the district court of its remand order and our review of such a remand order after it has become effective, does not apply, and d) the district court should have granted the motion for reconsideration and denied the motion for remand because the plaintiff waived his section 1441(b) objection to removal by making the objection after the time limit imposed by section 1447(c) had expired.
6. 605 Park Garage Assocs. v. 605 Apartment Corp.: Holding that the Condominium and Cooperative Conversion Protection and Abuse Relief Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3601, did not authorize a condominium to terminate the lease of a parking garage located within the building.
Comments