Federal Officer Removal Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(A)(1))

19 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Imfc Prof'l Servs. OF Fla., Inc. v. Latin Am. Home Health, Inc.
  676 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 54×
  The court held that removal was proper, and while the district court had discretion to remand after the federal defendant was dismissed, it did not abuse its discretion by proceeding to summary judgment because the remand motion was untimely. However, the court reversed the summa
• Murphy v. Kodz
  351 F.2d 163· 9th Cir.· 1965-09-21 ·cited 50×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction, once properly established by removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), is not divested by the subsequent dismissal or resolution of the federal claim against the federal officer.
• Swett v. Schenk
  792 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 27×
  The disclosure regulation upon which investigator Llórente relied waived his immunity from testimonial compulsion with respect to matters of fact, and the district court on removal had derivative jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the contempt.
• Murray v. Talmadge Dewey Murray
  621 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a garnishment action against the United States, where the United States is merely a stakeholder and its substantive obligations are unchanged, does not fall within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) for removal to federal court.
• Lovell Mfg. v. Export-Import Bank OF THE United States & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., Inc.
  843 F.2d 725· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 18×
  Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a suit against FCIA when the federal claim against Eximbank was withdrawn, as the remaining claim is governed by state law and Eximbank's interest is tangential.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. v. Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
  618 F.2d 246· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that removal of a state criminal prosecution against a federal postal employee for an act occurring within the scope of his employment was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), thus denying the petition for a writ of mandamus
• Stapleton v. TWO Million Four Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand
  454 F.2d 1210· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 12×
• W. Sec. Co. v. Derwinski
  937 F.2d 1276· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Veterans' Administration's missed deadline for notifying Western to preserve personal liability did not invalidate the loan guaranty because Western suffered no harm from the delay.
• People OF the State OF Cal. v. Mesa
  813 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), applies to all federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether they have a specific federal defense.
• State of N.C. v. Lemans L. Ivory
  906 F.2d 999· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 6×
  A United States Marine's state criminal prosecution arising from a traffic accident while driving in a military convoy cannot be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) unless a colorable federal defense, such as immunity, is averred.
• McKEE v. Turner
  491 F.2d 1106· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for an apology, rather than monetary damages, rendered the case de minimis and not a justiciable controversy.
• Maury Hexamer v. Foreness
  981 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it erred by dismissing the case instead of remanding it to state court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
• Batchelor v. Am. Optical Corp.
  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65220· S.D. Fla.· 2016-05-09
  The court held that a plaintiff's express disclaimer of claims related to naval asbestos exposure prevents removal under the federal officer removal statute when the defendant's sole basis for removal is a colorable federal defense tied to that disclaimed exposure.
• Marley v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc.
  545 F. Supp. 2d 1266· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-13
  Removal of the action to federal court under the federal officer removal statute was appropriate because the defendants sufficiently demonstrated a colorable federal contractor defense and a causal connection between the plaintiffs' claims and their official duties.
• State OF Ohio v. Wright
  992 F.2d 616· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-30
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order because the remand was based on the district court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Such remand orders are explicitly barred from review by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), even