Connection lost
Server error
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant improperly removed a case to federal court before complete diversity existed. The Supreme Court held that because diversity was established before final judgment, the initial procedural error was not fatal and did not require vacating the judgment, prioritizing finality and efficiency.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a statutory defect in removal jurisdiction can be cured before final judgment. If Article III subject-matter jurisdiction exists when judgment is entered, the judgment stands despite an initial, timely-objected-to procedural error, prioritizing finality over strict adherence to removal timing rules.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
James Lewis (P, Kentucky) sued Caterpillar Inc. (D, Delaware/Illinois) and its servicer, Whayne Supply Co. (D, Kentucky), in Kentucky state court. The presence of two Kentucky residents, Lewis and Whayne, meant complete diversity was lacking. After Lewis settled with Whayne, Caterpillar removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, just before the one-year statutory deadline for removal expired. Lewis filed a timely motion to remand, arguing that an intervenor-plaintiff, Liberty Mutual, still had a claim against Whayne, thus destroying complete diversity. The district court erroneously denied the motion. Before trial, Liberty Mutual also settled with Whayne, and Whayne was formally dismissed from the suit. At this point, complete diversity existed between the remaining parties, Lewis and Caterpillar. The case proceeded to a jury trial, resulting in a verdict for Caterpillar. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the lack of complete diversity at the time of removal was a fatal jurisdictional defect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a final judgment of a federal district court void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the case was improperly removed at a time when complete diversity was absent, but the jurisdictional defect was cured before the entry of judgment?
No. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the district Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a final judgment of a federal district court void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the case was improperly removed at a time when complete diversity was absent, but the jurisdictional defect was cured before the entry of judgment?
Conclusion
This case establishes a crucial "cure" doctrine for removal defects, prioritizing the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pa
Legal Rule
An error in failing to remand a case that was improperly removed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, distinguished between a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A procedural defect at the time of removal (e.g., lack of