State of Ohio v. Charles E. Wright, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
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
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mesa v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. One Ford Coupe AutomobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.