Case Citator › Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation

Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
980 F.2d 564
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
67 of 67
Citing cases (total)
67
Treatment dates
1997–2000
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Gaus v. Miles is limited: all 67 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. The Ninth Circuit in Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. read Gaus as a case where the removing defendant offered no jurisdictional facts at any point, allowing later evidence of the amount in controversy.
More on how this was screened

The Eleventh Circuit in Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp. likewise rejected a reading that required all supporting facts in the removal notice itself. Gaus's burden on the removing party remains applicable when the amount in controversy is uncertain.

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.

67 later cases cite Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation; 67 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 Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation?

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

Limited

  • The Ninth Circuit read Gaus as requiring remand when the defendant provides no facts supporting the amount in controversy, and accepted later evidence when those facts were supplied.

    Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    We understand Gaus to mean that where the plaintiff does not claim damages in excess of $50,000 and the defendant offers “no facts whatsoever” to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, then the defendant has not borne the burden on removal of proving that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh Circuit rejected the view that Gaus required all proof of the amount in controversy to appear in the removal notice, treating that wording as unnecessary to Gaus's decision.

    Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp. · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    Plaintiff's reliance on the Ninth Circuit decision in Gaus as being in accord is erroneous. The holding in Gaus was based on the fact that the defendant produced no evidence before or after the filing of the petition to remove. The language that the evidence was insufficient to "satisfy [defendant's] burden of setting forth, in the petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000," 980 F.2d at 567, was not necessary to the decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation 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