Case Citator › Barbour v. International Union

Barbour v. International Union

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
640 F.3d 599
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
2022
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Barbour's first-served-defendant deadline was superseded by statute for actions commenced on or after January 6, 2012. The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub.
More on how this was screened

L. 112-63, § 103(b)(3), amended 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B) to give each defendant 30 days after its own service to file a removal notice. Section 105 made that amendment applicable to actions commenced on or after its effective date, including state actions later removed. Green recognized the displaced deadline while retaining Barbour's separate consent principle. All 45 flagged citations were read. The other references to statutory abrogation occur in citation-history parentheticals or accompany favorable uses of Barbour's other removal rules.

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.

45 later cases cite Barbour v. International Union; 45 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 Barbour v. International Union?

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Superseded by Statute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 court applied the JVCA's last-served-defendant rule, recognizing that the statute displaced the first-served deadline associated with Barbour while preserving the separate requirement that a later-served defendant consent to removal within 30 days.

    Green v. City of Columbia · District of South Carolina · filed

    Second, Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Mayland Cmty. Coll. and Barbour v. Int’l Union on the basis that those cases are no longer good law. ... The Report acknowledges that the first proposition has been abrogated by the JVCA; however, the second proposition remains precedential regarding the time from which a non-removing defendant’s consent must be provided or suffer remand. The JVCA codified a version of the rule of unanimity in § 1446(b)(2)(A) and established the last-served defendant rule.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Barbour v. International Union 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