Legal Opinion · Dissent
Limehouse v. Hulsey
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided June 16, 2011No. 4805Published
1DissentFew, C.J.
I disagree with the majority’s analysis of Issues I and II, and therefore dissent. Because my position on either Issue I *81or II would resolve this appeal, I would not reach Issues III and IV.
I. Jurisdiction
Hulsey moved for a new trial and for relief from judgment on the ground that jurisdiction never re-vested in the state court after removal, and therefore federal law prohibited the state court from proceeding with the case. The plain language of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(d) and 1447(c) required that the motion be granted.
a. The Plain Language of Sections 1446(d) and 1447(c)
Section 1446(d) provides…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Peacock v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- In Re Katherine Susan LoweCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Coyne & Delany Company v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia, Incorporated, and Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Tomi White Bryan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bellsouth Communications, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2004
- Bryan v. BellSouth Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.