University of Memphis Digital Commons
Not a member yet
43176 research outputs found
Sort by
Residence of Dr. D.T. Porter
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1370/thumbnail.jp
Residence of Peter G. Grant
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1364/thumbnail.jp
Residence of James Lee
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1389/thumbnail.jp
Residence of J.A. Ely
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1380/thumbnail.jp
Residence of J.T. Fargason
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1391/thumbnail.jp
Morningside Heights
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1261/thumbnail.jp
Residence of Mrs. Walter A. Goodman and Mrs. John M. Richardson
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1288/thumbnail.jp
Residence of L.K. Salsbury
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1273/thumbnail.jp
Snap Removal and the Absurdity Doctrine
Snap removal, the “swift removal of a case before a forum defendant can be served,”1 is “the rare case in which it is as clear as anything ever can be that Congress did not mean what in strict letter it said.”2 There is no evidence that when the removal statutes were amended in 1948, Congress intended to allow forum defendants to remove a case before being served.3 Indeed, many courts have reached the opposite conclusion.4 Thus, allowing snap removal leads to absurd results.5 Some courts deem snap removal absurd.6 Three circuit courts, however, find this practice acceptable.7 Some scholars claim that snap removal produces illogical results.8 Other scholars are at peace with this practice.9 But for whatever combination of reasons, courts have yet to take a close look at the absurdity doctrine.10 This Article is an effort to contribute to this debate.1
Residence of F.M. Crump
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1305/thumbnail.jp