[4] Although some commentators expressed concern that the Court's ruling would cause "damage to the law of review",[5] others described it as a victory for attorneys who defend against class actions.

[12] Brandon W. Owens filed a class action in the district court for Wilson County, Kansas to recover royalties that he claimed were owed to members of the class by Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC for oil and gas leases.

[13] Although he did not specify damages in his complaint, Owens requested "a fair and reasonable amount" to compensate the class for the alleged underpayments.

[14] The defendants then filed a motion to remove the case to federal district court, in which they stated the "purported underpayments to putative class members totaled more than $8.2 million".

[13] In response, Owens filed a motion to return the case to the Kansas state court on the grounds that the defendants produced "no evidence" to prove the amount in controversy was actually over the $5 million threshold.

[21] Judge Hartz concluded the Tenth Circuit had an "obligation" to grant review en banc "to provide clarity in this important area of the law".

[22] After the Tenth Circuit denied review en banc, Dart Cherokee filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted on April 7, 2014.

[24] Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that a "short and plain" statement in a notice of removal need not contain evidentiary submissions.

[25] Justice Ginsburg also responded to an amicus brief filed by Public Citizen, Inc., which argued that the Tenth Circuit acted within its discretion when it decided to decline review because 28 U.S.C.

[32] Justice Ginsburg emphasized that Tenth Circuit's decision to deny Dart Cherokee's petition to review the remand order "was infected by legal error".

[38] Justice Scalia argued that the majority impermissibly concluded the Tenth Circuit denied review because it agreed with the District Court's legal analysis.

[39] In the final sentence of his opinion, Justice Scalia argued that because the Court failed to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, it should have affirmed the Tenth Circuit's decision to deny review "since we have absolutely no basis for concluding that it abused its discretion".