Freeman v. Bee MacHine Co., Inc
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Douglas
It was held in Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U. S. 377, 382, that where a state court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, the federal District Court acquires none on a removal of the case. And see General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 260 U. S. 261, 288; Venner v. Michigan Central R. Co., 271 U. S. 127, 131; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 389. That is true even where the federal court would have jurisdiction if the suit were brought there. Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., supra. As stated by Mr. Justice…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- American Well Works Company v. Layne and Bowler CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Virginia v. RivesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by274 opinions
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Arizona v. ManypennySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Danziger & De Llano LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
- Pt United Can Company Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., F/k/a Continental Can Company Richard Krzyzanowski John W. ConwayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- People v. HousbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
269 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.