FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 89
Process after removal
28 U.S.C. § 1448
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter89 — DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 1448 (Process after removal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 1448.
Text
In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which process served proves to be defective, such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.
This section shall not deprive any defendant upon whom process is served after removal of his right to move to remand the case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Getty Oil Corporation, Succeeded by and a Division of Texaco, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America
841 F.2d 1254 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
Albert Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S. A. And Maersk Lines
662 F.2d 1275 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Jean L. Richards v. Hal Harper, Max Baucus, and Pat Williams
864 F.2d 85 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co.
231 F.3d 165 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Gladys Allen and J. Patrick Craddock v. Robert Ferguson
791 F.2d 611 (Seventh Circuit, 1986)
Marilyn M. Marshall v. Mikel Warwick
155 F.3d 1027 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
John Beecher v. George C. Wallace
381 F.2d 372 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
Frank Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation
513 F.2d 140 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)
Hess v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
520 F. Supp. 373 (N.D. Illinois, 1981)
Jacqueline Rice v. Alpha Security, Incorporated
556 F. App'x 257 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)
Sparrow v. United States Postal Service
825 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. California, 1993)
In the Matter of the Application of Myles Greenberg and Frances M. Mulligan v. Anthony F. Veteran, Supervisor and Susan Tolchin, Town Clerk
889 F.2d 418 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Feliz v. MacNeill
493 F. App'x 128 (First Circuit, 2012)
Schmude v. Sheahan
214 F.R.D. 487 (N.D. Illinois, 2003)
Yoder v. Yamaha International Corporation
331 F. Supp. 1084 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Dean Marketing, Inc. v. AOC International (U.S.A.) Ltd.
610 F. Supp. 149 (E.D. Michigan, 1985)
Tanko v. Saperstein
149 F. Supp. 317 (N.D. Illinois, 1957)
40 D 6262 Realty Corp. v. United Arab Emirates Government
447 F. Supp. 710 (S.D. New York, 1978)
St. James Associates v. Larsen
67 F. App'x 684 (Third Circuit, 2003)
Howse v. Zimmer Manufacturing Inc.
109 F.R.D. 628 (D. Massachusetts, 1986)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 940.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §83 (Apr. 16, 1920, ch. 146, 41 Stat. 554).
Words "district court of the United States" were substituted for "United States Court," because only the district courts now possess jurisdiction over removed civil and criminal cases.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §83 (Apr. 16, 1920, ch. 146, 41 Stat. 554).
Words "district court of the United States" were substituted for "United States Court," because only the district courts now possess jurisdiction over removed civil and criminal cases.
Changes were made in phraseology.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 1448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/1448.