This article needs to be updated. (January 2022) |
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000),[1] was a case decided by the 6th Circuit that held that remand to a state court cannot be achieved after removal to a federal court by lowering the damages sought to fall below the amount in controversy requirement.[2]
| Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit |
| Full case name | Shirley K. Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
| Argued | September 13, 2000 |
| Decided | October 26, 2000 |
| Citation | 230 F.3d 868 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Motion to remand denied by U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, June 23, 1999 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Ralph B. Guy Jr., Karen Nelson Moore, David D. Dowd, Jr. (N.D. Ohio) |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Dowd, joined by a unanimous court |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 | |
Decision
editThe plaintiff sued Walmart in state court for a state law negligence action, seeking $950,000 in damages. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441,[3] the defendant removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff reduced the damages sought to less than $75,000 and petitioned for remand to state court because the amount in controversy requirement was no longer met. The 6th Circuit upheld a denial of the petition for remand, holding that the amount in controversy at the time of removal was what mattered.[4]
References
editExternal links
edit- Text of Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |