Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State of Ohio v. Charles E. Wright, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided April 30, 1993No. 91-3615Published

1ConcurrenceNathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge

I concur with the majority opinion which holds that we have no jurisdiction over this *621appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1988). I write separately, however, to give fuller exposition to this holding.

If a district court remands a case based on the grounds listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1988),1 this court cannot review the remand order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Thermtron Products v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). Importantly, this court is without jurisdiction to review a remand order grounded in Section 1447(c) even if the district court…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Mesa v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. United States v. One Ford Coupe AutomobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API