Back to Questions
Want to know:
Select the statement that best describes the relationship between removal and venue:A: In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, even if venue would have been improper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that stateB: In a properly removed case, venue is proper in the federal court of the state where the case was pending, but only if venue would have been proper had the plaintiff originally filed the action in the federal district court of that stateC: Venue and removal have no correlation
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- Oda Nobunaga (California) and Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Oregon) got into a car accident while both were on their way to visit a museum exhibit about the Japanese civil wars in the 16th century. Nobunaga sued in Oregon federal court for $100,000. He served process by having a process server leave the complaint and summons at Hideyoshi's house with his wife. However, Oregon's rules permit only personal service by a non-party. As a result, Hideyoshi files a motion to dismiss for insufficient process, arguing that the federal court should apply Oregon's service rules.Working with a neighbor, decide how the court will rule here. If you think Erie does not clearly answer the question of what to do, formulate a test for how courts can decide what to do in circumstances like this.
- Abstergo corporation (Pennsylvania) manufactures time machines. It sells a time machine to Bayek (Maryland), and then the machine explodes. Bayek sues Abstergo corporation for $90,000 under a state products liability law. Abstergo corporation impleads Valhalla corporation (Maryland) under rule 14, which manufactured one of the components of the time machine. Bayek amends his complaint to add a claim against Valhalla corporation for $90,000. Valhalla corporation moves to dismiss Bayek's amended claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How will the court rule on the motion?A.Granted because there is no claim with subject-matter jurisdiction.B.Granted because 28 U.S.C. §1367(b) bars jurisdiction.C.Denied because 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) authorizes jurisdiction.D.Granted because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) requires dismissal.
- The Therapeutic Products Directorate falls under which branch?