Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 36764
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

2005/3/19 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36764 Activity:nil
3/18    How chaotic can Florida's (or America's) court system be? One
        \- Florida is a little different. See e.g.:
           http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
        court rules to keep the feeding tube in, and 10 minutes later
        another rules to remove it. Isn't there a hierarchy? It's already
        gone to the State Supreme Court; how can little florida courts
        keep overturning their decision?
        \_ The Senate Health Committee has subpoenaed her and her husband.  She
           can't do that if she's starving to death.
           \_ That is what I mean. This entire situation is quite chaotic.
              Which ridiculous congressman is subpoena'ing a woman in
              a persistent vegetative state? Is he trying to be symbolic?
              \_ Short answer, yes.  I'm sick of hearing about this case.  If
                 she told her husband that she wouldn't want extreme measures
                 to keep her alive, she probably also told her parents.  If
                 they're not respecting her wishes, it's out of selfishness.
                 I think left to their own devices they could have worked
                 it out.  But since we've apparently got nothing else for
                 Congress to do than steroids and this, it's ended up center
                 stage.
                 \_ Congress is going to do steroids and remove a feeding tube?
                    Awesome!
                 \_ Congress loves shit like this.  Keeps them from having to
                    deal with real problems.  I bet they'd have Michael Jackson
                    hearings too, if they thought that they could get away with
                    it.
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/10/1-11/7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:54488 Activity:nil
10/1    Photos of the Supreme Court in session:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/8zuqc25 [slate]
	...
2009/11/11-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:53519 Activity:nil
11/11   The DC sniper Muhammad was executed 7yrs after his crime.  Don't denth
        penalty convicts usually spend much longer time on death roll?  What
        put him in the express line?
        \_ Even the supreme court said they should have had 2 weeks to
           consider commuting his sentence to life.  anyway troll boy,
           perhaps the mountain of evidence against the guy, the confession
	...
2009/10/28-11/3 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:53478 Activity:nil
10/28   "Price to PepsiCo for Not Being in Court: $1.26 Billion - Yahoo!"
        http://www.csua.org/u/pev
        This two guys scored it really big.  Who would have thought that a
        company as big as PespiCo wouldn't even show up in court?
	...
Cache (3151 bytes)
home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
ORDER OF REMAND This matter comes before the court sua sponte. After an extreme close-up review of the record and excellent authorities, the court enters the following order. Hurling Chunks On October 11, 1988, while berthed at the facilities of BRADFORD MARINE, INC. The blaze hurled chunks of flaming debris to other vessels, destroying those owned by LYN C NOBLE ("NOBLE") and ROBERT C MUIR ("MUIR"). Thereafter, NOBEL and MUIR commenced, on June 7, 1989, and July 15, 1989, respectively, separate actions in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. TIME as a new party, that Defendant, on May 9, 1990, removed the proceeding to federal court, claiming original jurisdiction insofar as the Plaintiff's causes of action or rights arose under the Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution. n1 PRIME TIME asserted that removal was timely because it came within thirty days of service of the Amended Complaint. Similarly, the MUIR action was also removed after that Plaintiff amended his Complaint so as to add PRIME TIME as a Defendant. Upon BRADFORD's objection, this court, by Order dated June 28, 1990, remanded the NOBLE action to the state court for the failure of all Defendants to join in the removal. On August 31, 1990, in accordance with Rule 6 of the General Rules of the Southern District of Florida, n2 the MUIR suit was transferred to the undersigned. Thereafter, PRIME TIME filed a Supplemental Notice of Removal (DE 2), bearing both the NOBLE and MUIR captions, attempting to effect a phoenix-like ascent to federal court through the MUIR proceeding. sponte whether its subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked. See 14A Charles A Wright, Arthur R Miller & Edward H Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure @ 3721 (2d ed. If the case, as stated by the initial pleading, is not removable, removal may be effected within thirty days after receipt or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading from which it may be ascertained that the case is removable. and strictly construed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure to comply with time requirement of Section 1446 is a defect causing "improvident" removal. The addition of a new Defendant in an Amended Complaint, however, does not start the time for removal anew when the original Complaint itself was removable. Unless the amendment sets forth a new basis of federal jurisdiction, subsequent events do not make a removable case "more removable" or "again removable." Thus, the failure of initial Defendants to remove during the original thirty day time period is deemed a waiver of the right of removal which is binding on subsequently added Defendants. A Schwing and a Miss Because of the court's admiralty jurisdiction, MUIR's original Complaint, like his Amended Complaint, provided BRADFORD with a basis for removal. As a result, PRIME TIME's removal, almost ten months after MUIR commenced suit, is untimely and is a defect deemed "way" improvident. For similar reasons, the court finds that removal of the NOBLE case, which had been remanded, was also untimely.