Richard Roe v. John O'DOnOhue
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Courts continued to apply Roe's surviving rules on unanimous written consent, forfeiture of remand objections, and resolving doubts about removal in favor of remand.
30 later cases cite Richard Roe v. John O'DOnOhue; 30 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 Richard Roe v. John O'DOnOhue?
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
Overruled in Part
-
The Supreme Court abrogated Roe's rule that the removal period begins when a defendant receives the complaint before formal service.
Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In Silva, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals observed that “nothing... would justify our concluding that the drafters, in their quest for evenhandedness and promptness in the removal process, intended to abrogate the necessity for something as fundamental as service of process.” Id., at 1376. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished an earlier decision, Roe v. O’Donohue, 38 F. 3d 298 (CA7 1994), which held that a defendant need not receive service of process before his time for removal under § 1446(b) begins to run. See 69 F. 3d, at 1376. But, as the United States maintains in its amicus curiae brief, the Silva court “did not adequately explain why one who has not yet lawfully been made a party to an action should be required to decide in which court system the case should be heard.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13, n. 4. If, as the Seventh Circuit rightly determined, the “service or otherwise” language was not intended to abrogate the service requirement for purposes of Rule 81(c), that same language also was not intended to bypass service as a starter for § 1446(b)’s clock.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to Follow
-
The Ninth Circuit declined to follow Roe's requirement that each co-defendant submit a timely written notice of consent to removal and adopted a contrary rule.
Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · filed
In contrast, the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have adopted the more demanding requirement that each co-defendant must submit a timely, written notice of consent to joinder. See Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1262 n.11 (5th Cir. 1988); Roe v. O’Donohue, 38 F.3d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999); Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2008). ... We adopt the Sixth Circuit’s position as fully sufficient to implement the unanimous joinder rule.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Richard Roe v. John O'DOnOhue 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