Legal Opinion
Mary T. Williams v. AFC Enterprises, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided November 5, 2004No. 04-10104PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COX, Circuit Judge:
I. Introduction
The plaintiff filed in state court this putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The defendants removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to remand to state court, arguing that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes removal. The district court granted plaintiffs motion to remand, then sua sponte stayed its order and certified it for interlocutory review. Because we conclude that 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) proscribes our jurisdiction to review a remand order based upon lack of removal…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Jacqueline Burns v. Windsor Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. PetrarcaSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Victor C. Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., Caltex Petroleum, Inc., Caltex Petroleum Corporation, and Caltex Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Dudley v. Putnam Investment FundsDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2007
- Dial v. Healthspring of Alabama, Inc.District Court, S.D. Alabama · 2007
- Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
- Dorene Disanto v. Thomas L. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.