Jefferson Cty., Alabama v Acker, 9810
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Ginsburg |
| Citation | 527 U.S. 423,119 S.Ct. 2069,144 L.Ed.2d 408 |
| Docket Number | 9810 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1999 |
| Parties | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 2069JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, PETITIONER v. WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, and U. W. CLEMON, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [ |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
486 practice notes
-
State v. Wayfair, Inc., 3:16–CV–03019–RAL
..."barring anticipatory actions by taxpayers to stop the tax collector from initiating collection proceedings." Jefferson Cty. v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 435, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) : see also Hibbs , 542 U.S. at 107, 124 S.Ct. 2276 ("In sum, this Court has interpreted and appli......
-
Landsman & Funk Pc v. Skinder–strauss Associates, Nos. 09–3532
...from using diversity jurisdiction to gain injunctive relief against a state tax in federal court....” Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 435, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). Both the Johnson Act and the TIA “were designed to eliminate disparities between taxpayers who co......
-
Christians v. KemPharm, Inc., 3:17–cv–00002
...States."). "[T]he federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint." Jefferson Cty., Ala. v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999)."[T]he party seeking removal has the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, [......
-
City Of St. Louis v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., Case No. 07-13683-BC.
...and ... show a nexus, a ‘causal connection’ between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.” Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) (quotations and citations omitted). A private party defendant must also demonstrate that the party a......
Request a trial to view additional results
488 cases
-
State v. Wayfair, Inc., 3:16–CV–03019–RAL
..."barring anticipatory actions by taxpayers to stop the tax collector from initiating collection proceedings." Jefferson Cty. v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 435, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) : see also Hibbs , 542 U.S. at 107, 124 S.Ct. 2276 ("In sum, this Court has interpreted and appli......
-
Christians v. KemPharm, Inc., 3:17–cv–00002
...States."). "[T]he federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint." Jefferson Cty., Ala. v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999)."[T]he party seeking removal has the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, [......
-
City Of St. Louis v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., Case No. 07-13683-BC.
...and ... show a nexus, a ‘causal connection’ between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.” Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) (quotations and citations omitted). A private party defendant must also demonstrate that the party a......
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Morris, Case No. 2:15–cv–0798–JEO.
...Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831–32, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002) ; Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 430–31, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) ; Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 476–77, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998)......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Ninth Circuit Adopts “Unequivocally Clear and Certain” Standard to Determine When 30-Day Removal Clock is Triggered
...[2] 28 U.S.C. § 1442; see Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999)); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 124–25, 131–35 (1989). [3] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). [4] It was not until Plaintiff provided amended r......