28 U.S.C. § 1447(C) Construction

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Weaver
  610 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not available to review a district court's remand order when the district court's reasoning, even if not explicitly stated using statutory language, indicates a belief that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction.
• Rothner v. City OF Chicago
  879 F.2d 1402· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order remanding a case to state court on account of waiver implied from the course of litigation is not reviewable by the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  932 F.2d 1523· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that because the plaintiffs' motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the district court erred in remanding the cases and should have vacated its remand order.
• Seedman v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  837 F.2d 413· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 14×
  A district court, after certifying a remand order to state court, is divested of jurisdiction and cannot vacate that order, even if based on a clerical error or if a second removal petition is filed.
• Shipley v. Helping Hands Therapy
  996 F.3d 1157· 11th Cir.· 2021-05-06 ·cited 10×
  A district court exceeds its statutory authority by remanding a case based on a procedural defect in removal when the plaintiff's motion to remand for that defect is filed outside the 30-day statutory limit, making the remand order reviewable.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  966 F.2d 1130· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it needs the district court to explain its reasons for remanding the case to determine if the remand order is reviewable.
• Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. OF NEW York v. Republic OF Palau
  971 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge would find that the district court abused its discretion in awarding $136,000 in attorney's fees.
• In re Medscope Marine Ltd. & H. Glahr & Co.
  972 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's order remanding a case to state court when the remand was based on a timely motion asserting a defect in removal procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
• Dinesh Maniar v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Valley State Bank
  979 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-16 ·cited 5×
  The district court exceeded its authority by remanding the case sua sponte more than 30 days after removal based on a procedural defect.
• Tillman v. CSX Transp.
  929 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 4×
  A remand order based on the trial court's belief that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction is unreviewable, even if that belief is mistaken, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (d).
• Kam Hon, Inc. v. Cigna Fire Underwriters Ins.
  933 F. Supp. 1060· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-27 ·cited 1×
  A defendant waives its right to remove a case to federal court by taking affirmative action in state court before filing the notice of removal, and the court can sua sponte remand for this jurisdictional defect.
• Myers v. City of Naples
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-18
  The court granted the defendant's motion for attorney fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's improper removal of the case.
• Morris v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
  985 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-07
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) following an improper removal.