22 . See id. at 136 ("Because the requirements of the applicable removal statutes have not been met, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed.’’). In one of this Court’s decisions cited and discussed by the Second Circuit, I held that this Court had core bankruptcy jurisdiction over the action. See In re MTBE, 341 F.Supp.2d at 414. The Second Circuit's opinion did not challenge this holding even though it was an issue the appellate court had an independent duty to analyze and determine if it had any doubt. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”) 982) (<HOLDING>). 34 .These tests were developed based on
holding that the enforcement of a statute against an individual who had been involved in a motor vehicle accident is not an exercise of the states police or regulatory power if the state statute is not a highway safety statute designed to keep incompetent drivers off the road holding that the statute is mandatory holding that washingtons statute tolls the statute of limitations for a legally incompetent person notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian this is so because the right to the tolling statute vests in the incompetent person not in the guardian from this premise it follows that the guardians subsequent actions on the incompetent persons behalf should have no additional effect upon the statute of limitations unless they result in res judicata holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction   holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute