Case Citator › Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
482 U.S. 386
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
84 of 84
Citing cases (total)
6,960
Treatment dates
2018
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams has been superseded by statute in one context: all 84 flagged citations have been read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. Badhwa v. Veritec, Inc. held that 28 U.S.C. § 1454 displaced the plaintiff-complaint-only component of Caterpillar's well-pleaded-complaint rule for patent and copyright removal while preserving the rule's other principles.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Caterpillar positively, reported other authorities' treatment history, rejected adverse party arguments, or directed nearby adverse language at statutes and unrelated cases.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

6,960 later cases cite Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams; 84 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The District of Minnesota held that 28 U.S.C. § 1454 superseded Caterpillar's plaintiff-complaint-only rule for patent and copyright removal, permitting removal based on any party's qualifying claim while preserving the claimant's mastery of the claim and the well-pleaded requirement.

    Badhwa v. Veritec, Inc. · District of Minnesota · filed

    In the context of patent and copyright claims, § 1454 seemingly abrogates the "complaint" portion of the well-pleaded complaint rule. But, to the extent the rule embodies principles of federalism and makes the "claimant" (if not the plaintiff) "master of the claim," see Caterpillar, Inc. , 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, the "well-pleaded" requirement remains.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace