In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 creates a separate basis for defendants to remove specified class actions filed in a state court to a federal district court.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - 이송관할 (ko)
- Removal jurisdiction (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - 이송관할(Removal Jurisdiction)혹은 이관관할은 미국의 민사소송법상 관할로 피고가 주법원에서 연방법원으로 사건을 이송할 것으로 요청할 수 있는 권리를 말한다. 이는 미국법상 원고가 적법한 소송지를 결정할 수 있는 원칙에 대한 예외이다. 이송관할에 따른 이송은 피고가 주법원에 이송을 원하는 법원을 명시하고 이송을 청구하면서 개시된다. 피고의 이송요구가 부적절한 경우, 법원은 주법원에 환송시킬 수 있다. (ko)
- In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 creates a separate basis for defendants to remove specified class actions filed in a state court to a federal district court. (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| has abstract
| - In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal. Generally, removal jurisdiction exists only if, at the time plaintiff filed the action in state court, the federal court had a basis for exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, such as diversity of citizenship of the parties or where plaintiff's action involves a claim under federal law. If removal is based solely on diversity of citizenship, removal jurisdiction does not exist if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is pending. Where removal jurisdiction exists, the defendant may remove the action to federal court by filing a notice of removal in the federal district court within 30 days after receiving the complaint. The defendant must file a copy of the notice of removal in the state court and must notify all other parties of the removal. In a case with more than one named defendant, normally all defendants who have been served with legal process must join in the notice of removal. If the party contends that removal was improper, based on any ground other than that the federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the party may move the district court to remand the case to state court within 30 days after the defendant filed the notice of removal. The district court will grant the motion if it finds that removal was improper. If the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time before entry of final judgment, the district court must remand the action to the state court. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 creates a separate basis for defendants to remove specified class actions filed in a state court to a federal district court. (en)
- 이송관할(Removal Jurisdiction)혹은 이관관할은 미국의 민사소송법상 관할로 피고가 주법원에서 연방법원으로 사건을 이송할 것으로 요청할 수 있는 권리를 말한다. 이는 미국법상 원고가 적법한 소송지를 결정할 수 있는 원칙에 대한 예외이다. 이송관할에 따른 이송은 피고가 주법원에 이송을 원하는 법원을 명시하고 이송을 청구하면서 개시된다. 피고의 이송요구가 부적절한 경우, 법원은 주법원에 환송시킬 수 있다. (ko)
|
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | - Amount in controversy
- Project Runway
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
- Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- List of acts of the 112th United States Congress
- 2009 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Stephen Breyer
- Derek Boogaard
- Anti-Injunction Act
- Argentine debt restructuring
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 100
- Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York
- Pete Rose
- Robert E. Murray
- United States v. More
- United States v. Throckmorton
- Violence Against Women Act
- International Insurance Co. v. Duryee
- SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
- SPEECH Act
- Class action
- Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati Railroad
- Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Geduldig v. Aiello
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.
- Graver v. Faurot
- Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
- Miranda Du
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
- Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.
- Murder of Sherri Rasmussen
- Criminal law in the Chase Court
- Criminal law in the Waite Court
- The Spamhaus Project
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca
- Marshall v. Holmes
- 2018 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas
- 2018 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito
- Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.
- Lon Horiuchi
- Shirley Sherrod
- Shooting of Bijan Ghaisar
- Subject-matter jurisdiction
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)