Case Citator › Larry Laughlin v. Kmart Corporation

Larry Laughlin v. Kmart Corporation

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

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
50 F.3d 871
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
2000–2014
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Larry Laughlin v. Kmart Corporation was overruled in part on what a removal notice must show about the amount in controversy. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens held that a plausible allegation suffices until challenged.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court also held that Laughlin's presumption against removal does not govern class actions under the Class Action Fairness Act. Two other courts declined to follow Laughlin's restrictive approach to evidence submitted after removal. All 38 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatments are listed below.

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.

38 later cases cite Larry Laughlin v. Kmart Corporation; 38 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 Larry Laughlin v. Kmart 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

Overruled in part

  • Rejected the removal-notice proof requirement attributed to Laughlin: a plausible amount-in-controversy allegation suffices until the plaintiff or court questions it.

    Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We granted certiorari to resolve a division among the Circuits on the question presented. 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1788, 188 L.Ed.2d 757 (2014). Compare Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,519 F.3d 192, 200 (C.A.4 2008)(a removing party's notice of removal need not "meet a higher pleading standard than the one imposed on a plaintiff in drafting an initial complaint"), and Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc.,528 F.3d 982, 986 (C.A.7 2008)(similar), with Laughlin,50 F.3d, at 873("the requisite amount in controversy ... must be affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or the removal notice"). ... In sum, as specified in § 1446(a), a defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B)only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant's allegation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • Held that Laughlin's presumption against removal does not apply to class actions brought under the Class Action Fairness Act.

    Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In remanding the case to state court, the District Court relied, in part, on a purported "presumption" against removal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. See, e.g.,Laughlin,50 F.3d, at 873("[T]here is a presumption against removal jurisdiction."). We need not here decide whether such a presumption is proper in mine-run diversity cases. It suffices to point out that no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • Rejected Laughlin's restriction on evidence submitted after removal and allowed proof of jurisdictional facts that existed when the case was removed.

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

    In Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir.1995), the Tenth Circuit sua sponte remanded a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither plaintiff's petition nor defendant's notice of removal established on their face the requisite jurisdictional amount. The court refused to consider facts in defendant's jurisdictional brief or an economic analysis of plaintiff's damages claims prepared after the motion for removal. This is the only case cited or found which employs such a restrictive approach. ... We align ourselves with our sister circuits in adopting a more flexible approach, allowing the district court when necessary to consider post-removal evidence in assessing removal jurisdiction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Expressly declined to follow Laughlin's restriction on considering jurisdictional facts omitted from the removal notice.

    Evans v. Yum Brands, Inc. · District of New Hampshire · filed

    In determining the amount in controversy, the Tenth Circuit has refused to consider facts omitted from the notice of removal but subsequently brought to the court’s attention by way of the defendant's briefing. ... This court therefore declines to follow Laughlin.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Larry Laughlin v. Kmart 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