Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Tiger Center for Applied Behavior Analysis Services, LLC v. Marquette University E.D. Wis.
- 2025Continental 611 Fund LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, et al. E.D. Wis.
- 2023Eliezer Taveras v. US Bank National Association 11th Cir.
- 2023Bravenec v. Martin Fed. Cir.
- 2022KMS Interests, Inc. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company S.D.N.Y.
- 2021Bolus v. Carnicella, Esquire M.D. Penn.
- 2020Timothy Demartini v. Michael Demartini 9th Cir.
- 2020AMATO v. AAA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB W.D. Pa.
- 2020Kyle Atkins v. Ford Motor Co. 9th Cir.
- 2019Old Mill LLC v. American Resources Insurance Company Inc D.S.C.
Cites 1 statute
- Procedure after removal generally
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
GRAVITT, EXECUTRIX et al. v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. et al.
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.