Case Citator › In re Moore

In re Moore

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
209 U.S. 490
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
47 of 47
Citing cases (total)
47
Treatment dates
1911–1923
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. In re Moore has been overruled in part: all 47 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Ex parte Harding rejected Moore's use of mandamus to review an ordinary civil remand decision; the Eighth Circuit later described that change as an overruling in part.
More on how this was screened

Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. also rejected Moore's suggestion that removal to a district where neither party lived required the plaintiff's consent. Later courts continued to apply Moore's separate rule that a party can waive a procedural objection by litigating in federal court.

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.

47 later cases cite In re Moore; 47 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 In re Moore?

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 disapproved Moore's use of mandamus to review a refusal to remand an ordinary civil case when statutory review was available.

    Ex parte Harding · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Under these circumstances it becomes our plain duty, while not questioning the general doctrine announced in any of the cases, yet to disapprove and qualify Ex parte Wisner, In re Moore and In re Winn to the extent that those cases applied the exceptional rule of Virginia v. Rives
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court rejected Moore's suggestion that a plaintiff must consent before a defendant may remove a diversity case to the federal district encompassing the state court.

    Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We find no support for such an assumption in the provisions we are considering. Under them, as before indicated, the exercise of the right of removal' rests entirely with the defendant and is in no sense dependent on the will or acquiescence of the plaintiff. The opinion in In re Moore is qualified accordingly.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Moore 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