OEHMICHEN

v.

BROWNELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN

Citator

Cited By

• Joseph A. and Mary Ann Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., 181 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
  …28 U.S.C. § 1446 was amended. Under the amendment, the filing of a removal petition terminates the state court’s jurisdiction until the case is remanded, even in a case improperly removed. Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F. 2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 842, 78 S.Ct. 65, 2 L.Ed.2d 52 (1957). Thereafter, it is the federal district court’s duty to determine whether to remand due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. This is contrary to the former rule where the case must have been properly removed…
• Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1988)
  …28 U.S.C. § 1446 was amended. Under the amendment, the filing of a removal petition terminates the state court’s jurisdiction until the case is remanded, even in a case improperly removed. Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F. 2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 842, 78 S.Ct. 65, 2 L.Ed. 52 (1957). Thereafter, it is the federal district court’s duty to determine wheth [*1255] er to remand due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. This is contrary to the former rule where the case must have been properly r…
• Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1962)
  …joined in the petition or not. Bradford v. Harding, 284 F. 2d 307 (2d Cir.1960). See also Jones v. Elliott, 94 F.Supp. 567 (E.D.Va.1950); Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622 (D.C.1955); Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F. 2d 432 (5th Cir. 1957), certiorari denied 355 U.S. 842, 78 S.Ct. 65, 2 L.Ed.2d 52; Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S. 205, 26 L.Ed. 514 (1880). Not only had the case been removed from the state court on December 19, 1958, but plaintiff’s first motion to remand had been denied prior to the time the state court…