No. Only the Defendant has the right to remove. If the P wants to file the case in a federal court, they could have to get the case dismissed and re-file the case in the federal court. Plaintiff gets choice of forum, so if he wanted federal court, he should've filed it there initially.
Diversity of citizenship allows the federal court to have jurisdiction over a matter that would otherwise be litigated in state court. If the issue being litigated is one of state law, and both parties are citizens of different states, and the amount at issue meets a certain level ($50,000?), the parties may choose to litigate the matter in federal court. The plaintiff may file as a federal law suit, or the defendant may "remove" it to federal court.
Cases will be filed in federal court if the plaintiff and the tobacco company are from different states. However, if a plaintiff sues the local stores he/she bought from the case may proceed in state court. However, tobacco companies will remove to federal court under theories that federal warning laws preempt state claims. A federal judge then decides to keep the case in federal court or remand to state court.
Those courts have CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.Concurrent jurisdiction is exercised simultaneously by more than one court over the same matter and within the same territory with the litigant having the right to choose the court in which to file the action.Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over somematters.Civil rights cases brought under 42 USC & 1983, for example, can be heard in either state or federal court. A tort or contract case against an out of state defendant can be brought in state or federal court if the amount of damages exceeds the requisite statutory amount. There is an entire body of removal rules to remove cases from state court to federal court where there is concurrent jurisdiction.
It entitles the legal jurisdiction that 'wants' you to take legal action to remove you from another legal jurisdiction which is 'holding' you, and take you back to the 'wanting' jurisdiction.
The court can make it illegal for one or both parents to remove a child that is currently part of a custody case to be removed from the jurisdiction of that court system.
Sometimes either. A civil case may be tried in the state of the party filing suit, or a party can invoke federal diversity jurisdiction and remove the case to federal court if the amount of the claim is in excess of $75,000.
The District of Columbia was created to be the capital, to remove it from the jurisdiction of any individual state and place it in the control of the Federal government. The site was chosen by George Washington
The law is quite likely different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but one would reasonably believe that only the person(s) that own the plot can legally remove (or approve the removal) of a headstone.
he better have a court order, even if it is a civil suit, they cannot remove any goods with out a warrant or an order
He didn't. Chief Justice John Marshall opposed the federal government removing the Cherokee from their land, but never had an opportunity to hear a case against the United States in which the Supreme Court had appropriate jurisdiction to issue a ruling.
You can try the police first, and if the police are unable, you will have to resort to eviction laws in your jurisdiction.
The laws for how to handle and/or dispose of so-called "abandoned property" vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Contact your local authories and ask what you have to do to consider it "abandoned."
It is Illegal and a violation of Federal Law, to remove the catalitic converter.
the power to remove federal justices .... ;)
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between the states; it also has original, but shared, jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors (although the latter class of case is not automatic). Congress cannot remove the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction; that action can only be accomplished through constitutional amendment.
The federal government and Winfield Scott.
That depends on the state or jurisdiction. The court can do so in many states.
No. Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
Yes. States can additional restrictions to, but not remove restrictions from, the federal laws.
Congress establishes lower federal courts Congress can impeach and remove federal judges
If the Fed wants to raise the federal funds interest rate, it will sell securities to remove reserves from the banking system.
The Senate can remove Federal officials from office. The Senate is responsible for initiating an impeachment of a President of the United States. The Senate can also vote to have a member of the Senate removed for misconduct.
Yes. Congress can pass legislation that prevents the US Supreme Court from exercising appellate jurisdiction over certain Executive and Legislative actions, either in whole or in part. This is known as jurisdiction stripping, or curtailment of jurisdiction. Congress cannot pass legislation that interferes with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, as granted by the constitution, nor can they concurrently remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior courts, leaving no forum to challenge the legislation (although they may specify which court or courts will have original and appellate jurisdiction in such cases, as they did with Guantanamo detainees).Some other examples of legislation that stripped jurisdiction from the Supreme Court:The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (denied federal courts the right to challenge decisions the INS makes regarding asylum-granting).The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) (restricts remedies to civil litigation relating to prison conditions)The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) (limits the number of habeas petitions state prisoners can file in federal court).For more information, see Related Questions, below.
It indicates that the plaintiff has requested the court remove an answer given by the defendant due to irrelevancy of the response or other factors.
Not legally according to Federal Law.