InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens

In a dispute over removing a class action over oil and gas lease revenue from Kansas state court to federal court, the Court held that a notice of removal did not need to include evidence of the amount in controversy.· AI-written

574 U.S. 81 · No. 13-719 · 2014 term · Roberts Court

Decided Dec 15, 2014 · argued Oct 7, 2014

Judicial power · Comity primarily removal cases, civil procedure

Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Vacated and remanded. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC won.

What this ruling means

Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the defendant's notice of removal did not need to contain evidence of the amount in controversy because congress intended for courts to "apply the same liberal rules [to removal allegations] that are applied to other matters of pleading". Justice Ginsburg also held that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion by declining to review the district court's ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued the Court should dismiss the case as improvidently granted because the Court had "no basis" to determine whether the Tenth Circuit denied review for an impermissible reason. Justice Clarence Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which he argued the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Tenth Circuit's ruling because the decision to deny review was not a "case". Although some commentators expressed concern that the Court's ruling would cause "damage to the law of review", others described it as a victory for attorneys who defend against class actions.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2014 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLCOil company, or natural gas producer
Respondent
OwensInvestor
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Dec 15, 2014DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC won.
  2. Oct 7, 2014ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit: vacated and remanded, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Kansas U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

49 other argued cases since 1946 on comity primarily removal cases, civil procedure, newest first.

  1. BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore141 S. Ct. 1532May 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1532Judicial power7–18–1 band
  2. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson139 S. Ct. 1743May 28, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1743Judicial power5–45–4 band

  3. Miss. ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics Corp.571 U.S. 161Jan 14, 2014 · 571 U.S. 161Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  4. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs571 U.S. 69Dec 10, 2013 · 571 U.S. 69Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  5. Mary Anna Rivet, et al. v. Regions Bank of Louisiana et al.522 U.S. 470Feb 24, 1998 · 522 U.S. 470Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  6. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., et al. v. Lawrence Epstein, et al.516 U.S. 367Feb 27, 1996 · 516 U.S. 367Judicial power6–36–3 band
  7. William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Landmark · Other509 U.S. 579Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 579Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  8. R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry G. Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.509 U.S. 137Jun 21, 1993 · 509 U.S. 137Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  9. William McNeil v. United States508 U.S. 106May 17, 1993 · 508 U.S. 106Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  10. John J. McCarthy v. Larry Madigan, et al.503 U.S. 140Mar 4, 1992 · 503 U.S. 140Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  11. Franchise Tax Board of California et al. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. et al.493 U.S. 331Jan 10, 1990 · 493 U.S. 331Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  12. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans et al.491 U.S. 350Jun 19, 1989 · 491 U.S. 350Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  13. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, As Receiver of Firstsouth, F. A.489 U.S. 561Mar 21, 1989 · 489 U.S. 561Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  14. Deakins et al. v. Monaghan et al.484 U.S. 193Jan 12, 1988 · 484 U.S. 193Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  15. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.481 U.S. 1Apr 6, 1987 · 481 U.S. 1Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  16. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Laplante et al.480 U.S. 9Feb 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 9Judicial power8–18–1 band
  17. Parsons Steel, Inc., et al. v. First Alabama Bank et al.474 U.S. 518Jan 27, 1986 · 474 U.S. 518Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  18. Marrese et al. v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons470 U.S. 373Mar 4, 1985 · 470 U.S. 373Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
  19. Arizona et al. v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona et al.463 U.S. 545Jul 1, 1983 · 463 U.S. 545Judicial power6–36–3 band
  20. California et al. v. Grace Brethren Church et al.457 U.S. 393Jun 18, 1982 · 457 U.S. 393Judicial power7–27–2 band
  21. Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc., et al. v. McNary et al.454 U.S. 100Dec 1, 1981 · 454 U.S. 100Judicial power5–45–4 band
  22. Rosewell, Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, et al. v. Lasalle National Bank, Trustee450 U.S. 503Mar 24, 1981 · 450 U.S. 503Judicial power5–45–4 band
  23. County of Imperial, California, et al. v. Munoz et al.449 U.S. 54Dec 2, 1980 · 449 U.S. 54Judicial power6–36–3 band
  24. Moore et al. v. Sims et ux.442 U.S. 415Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 415Judicial power5–45–4 band
  25. Trainor, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, et al. v. Hernandez et ux.431 U.S. 434May 31, 1977 · 431 U.S. 434Judicial power5–45–4 band
  26. Tully et al. v. Griffin, Inc.429 U.S. 68Nov 9, 1976 · 429 U.S. 68Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  27. Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Sugar et al.425 U.S. 73Mar 24, 1976 · 425 U.S. 73Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  28. Colorado River Water Conservation District et al. v. United StatesLandmark · Other424 U.S. 800Mar 24, 1976 · 424 U.S. 800Judicial power6–36–3 band
  29. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., et al.422 U.S. 922Jun 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 922Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  30. Lehman Brothers v. Schein et al.416 U.S. 386Apr 29, 1974 · 416 U.S. 386Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  31. Granny Goose Foods, Inc., et al. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America415 U.S. 423Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 423Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  32. Gibson et al. v. Berryhill et al.411 U.S. 564May 7, 1973 · 411 U.S. 564Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  33. Grubbs, dba T. R. Grubbs Tire & Appliance v. General Electric Credit Corp.405 U.S. 699Apr 18, 1972 · 405 U.S. 699Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  34. Askew, Governor of Florida, et al. v. Hargrave et al.401 U.S. 476Mar 8, 1971 · 401 U.S. 476Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  35. Reetz, Commissioner of Fish and Game of Alaska, et al. v. Bozanich et al.397 U.S. 82Feb 25, 1970 · 397 U.S. 82Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  36. Willingham, Warden, et al. v. Morgan395 U.S. 402Jun 9, 1969 · 395 U.S. 402Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  37. England et al. v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners et al.375 U.S. 411Jan 13, 1964 · 375 U.S. 411Judicial power8–18–1 band
  38. Best et al. v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. et al.371 U.S. 334Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 334Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  39. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. et al.369 U.S. 134Mar 19, 1962 · 369 U.S. 134Judicial power6–27–2 band

  40. Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, v. Egan, Governor of Alaska, et al.363 U.S. 555Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 555Judicial power6–36–3 band
  41. Martin, Successor to Lawler, Secretary of Highways of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Creasy et al.360 U.S. 219Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 219Judicial power8–18–1 band
  42. County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. et al.360 U.S. 185Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 185Judicial power5–45–4 band
  43. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux360 U.S. 25Jun 8, 1959 · 360 U.S. 25Judicial power6–36–3 band
  44. Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States et al.352 U.S. 220Jan 14, 1957 · 352 U.S. 220Judicial power8–18–1 band
  45. Doud et al., Doing Business As Bondified Systems, et al. v. Hodge, Auditor of Public Accounts of Illinois, et al.350 U.S. 485Mar 26, 1956 · 350 U.S. 485Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  46. Public Utilities Commission of California et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. et al.346 U.S. 402Nov 30, 1953 · 346 U.S. 402Judicial power6–27–2 band
  47. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, State Revenue Commissioner342 U.S. 299Jan 28, 1952 · 342 U.S. 299Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  48. Alabama Public Service Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co.341 U.S. 363May 21, 1951 · 341 U.S. 363Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  49. Alabama Public Service Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co.341 U.S. 341May 21, 1951 · 341 U.S. 341Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.