Overview
Case summary
This case involves a removal petition from state to federal court. Plaintiff Bonner, representing Nevada residents occupying land in the Town of Lamar, sued defendants including J.R. De Lemar over ownership of land claimed through the Naid Queen mining claim. De Lemar, a New York resident, sought removal to federal circuit court under the act of 1887-88, alleging prejudice and local influence in Nevada courts. The state court denied removal. De Lemar then filed an original petition in federal court. The federal court granted removal, holding that: (1) removal petitions based on prejudice must be made to federal court; (2) notice to opposite party is better practice but discretionary; (3) under the 1887-88 act, a defendant from another state may remove even if co-defendants are state citizens; and (4) verification by attorney with knowledge is sufficient. The court found the petition adequately showed prejudice and complied with statutory requirements.
Abstract
Plaintiff sued defendants over ownership of land claimed through a mining claim. A non-resident defendant petitioned to remove the case from state to federal court under the removal statute, alleging prejudice and local influence in state courts, after the state court denied removal. The federal court granted removal, holding the petition sufficiently showed prejudice, complied with statutory requirements including proper verification, and allowed removal despite co-defendants being state citizens.
Opinion of the court
opinionHAWLEY, District Judge
- Removal petition must be to federal court
- Notice practice discretionary but preferred
- Citizenship requirements liberalized under 1887-88 act
- Verification by attorney sufficient
- Prejudice adequately shown
Jurisdiction
challenged- Petitioner is a resident of New York, plaintiffs are citizens of Nevada
- Amount in dispute exceeds $2,000
Procedural posture
- Right to remove based on prejudice/local influence
- Sufficiency of petition verification
- Necessity of all defendants being from another state
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Statute requires petition to be made to circuit court
Issue preserved for review
abuse of discretion
Better practice is to give notice and allow counter affidavits, but court has discretion
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Act does not require all defendants to be from another state; any defendant with requisite citizenship may remove
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Act does not require personal verification; affidavit by attorney with knowledge is sufficient
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- State court erred in denying removal and not deciding prejudice issue — procedural · no error foundNot applicable as federal court reviews de novo · not applicable
Statutory interpretation
3Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Statutory interpretation of removal requirements — de novo Court reviews legal questions of statute interpretation de novo
- Practice and procedure for removal applications — abuse of discretion Court defers to trial court's discretion on procedural matters
Timeline
Plaintiff and others begin continuous possession of land in Town of Lamar
Establishes possession claim for plaintiff's case
Defendants apply for patent to Naid Queen mining claim; plaintiff files protest in land office
Triggers underlying dispute over land ownership
Plaintiff files suit in Nevada state court against defendants
Outcome: Suit pending
Initiates legal proceedings
Defendant De Lemar petitions state court for removal to federal court on federal question and prejudice grounds
Outcome: Denied; state court found no federal question and declined to decide prejudice issue
State court refuses removal, leading to federal court petition
Federal court grants removal petition, ordering cause removed to federal court
Outcome: Removal granted
Final disposition allowing case to proceed in federal court
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
6 facts- Plaintiff Bonner and others occupy town on unsurveyed nonmineral public land
- Defendants claim land through Naid Queen mining claim location
- Defendants applied for patent; plaintiff filed protest
- Plaintiff alleges mining claim is nonmineral and not patentable
- Town residents hold mass meetings, raise funds for plaintiff's case, express prejudice against defendants
- Petitioner De Lemar is New York resident; plaintiffs are Nevada citizens
Disputed questions
- Whether Naid Queen claim is mineral or nonmineral
- Existence and extent of prejudice/local influence against defendants
Procedural history
4 steps- Suit filed in Nevada state court
- Defendant petitioned state court for removal to federal court on federal question and prejudice grounds
- State court denied removal, holding no federal question and declining to decide prejudice issue
- Defendant filed original removal petition in federal court
Evidence in the record
- Affidavit of H.A. Cohen verifying petition
- Petition detailing mass meetings, fundraising, and public statements against defendants
- Affidavit of H.A. Cohen regarding local prejudice
- Petition for removal
- State court order denying removal
- Complaint in state court
- Allegations of widespread discussion and prejudice in Lincoln County and adjoining counties
- Evidence type: Affidavit of H.A. Cohen · Challenge basis: Sufficiency and truth of facts regarding prejudice · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Court found allegations clear and positive, complying with law · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Objects of relevance
Policy considerations
- Promotion of fair trials free from local prejudice
- Efficiency in judicial proceedings through single hearings
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
Related cases (4)
Statutes
- Act of 1887-88 (removal statute)
- General Statutes of Nevada §§ 3040, 3043 (venue change)
Standards & doctrines
- Discretionary standard for proof in removal cases
- De novo review for statutory interpretation
Legal principles applied
- Better practice to give notice in removal applications
- Court discretion in evaluating proof of prejudice
Notable quotes
“The duty of courts ends by giving to the various provisions of the statute a proper legal construction. They have nothing to do with the wisdom, policy, or expediency of the law.”majority — Responding to argument about hardship of removalEmphasizes judicial role in interpreting, not evaluating, statutes