Miedema v. Maytag Corp.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens rejected Miedema v. Maytag Corp.'s presumption against removal in cases under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Eleventh Circuit recognized that change in Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co. while continuing to apply Miedema's other amount-in-controversy rules. The confirmed treatment is listed below.
38 later cases cite Miedema v. Maytag Corp.; 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 Miedema v. Maytag Corp.?
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
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court rejected Miedema's presumption against removal for class actions under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
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 →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Miedema v. Maytag Corp. 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