GRAVITT, EXECUTRIX ET AL.
v.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1977-04-25
No. 76-1036
430 U.S. 723 Supreme Court of the United States (1977) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 52 L. Ed. 2d 1 · 97 S. Ct. 1439 · 1977 U.S. LEXIS 6 · SCDB 1976-089
Cited by 263 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A tort action removed to federal court on diversity grounds was remanded by the district court for lack of complete diversity among the parties, but the Fifth Circuit used mandamus to vacate the remand order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand orders issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) are unreviewable on appeal or by mandamus, and the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction in remanding the case.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This tort action was removed from the Texas state courts to the United States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship but was remanded as having been “improperly removed” when it seemed that there was not complete diversity among the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by mandamus, ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals erred. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that “the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction”; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) unmistakably commands that the order “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .” The District Court’s remand order was plainly within the bounds of § 1447 (c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336 (1976), is not to the contrary, for there the District Court remanded “on grounds wholly different from those upon which § 1447 (c) permits remand." Id., at 344. Thermtron did not question but re-emphasized the rule that § 1447 (c) remands are not reviewable.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (67 total)

  • Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1977)
    …U. S. C. §1447 (d). We held, however, that review is not precluded if the order is based “ ‘on grounds wholly different from those . . . which [the statute authorizing remand, 28 U. S. C.] § 1447 (c) permits.’” Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 430 U. S. 723, 724 (1977). Where the order is- based on one of the enumerated grounds, review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in ordering the remand. Id., at 723. While we express no opinion on the question whether § 4 (b) precludes review of…
  • McGINNIS v. Ingram Equip. Co., Inc., 918 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …r Circuit Judge, dissenting: As I have previously asserted, the adage “Hard cases make bad law” ought to be taken as a warning and not as a mandate. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 542 F. 2d 297, 298 (5th Cir.1976) (Hill, J., dissenting), rev’d, 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). This is a hard case. The court, today, makes bad law. Though tempted, I cannot join. The court faces a “hard” case “whenever the judge of the court has the power to order that which he believes to be right and,…
  • Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assn., AFL-CIO v. Carter, 450 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1981)
    …1-352. See Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U. S. 404, 414, n. 13 (1977) (“Where the order is based on one of the enumerated grounds, review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in ordering the remand”); Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U. S. 723 (1977) (“Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that ‘the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction’; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U. S. C. §…

Previewing 3 of 67 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw