Carl Thaysen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

Third Circuit

Carl Thaysen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

329 F.2d 149, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6030

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1964

Docket14698

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 149 (Carl Thaysen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl Thaysen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 329 F.2d 149, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6030 (3d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This civil action was removed to the federal district court from the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which it commenced. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446. The appellant’s motion for remand was denied and the appellee was granted leave to amend the jurisdictional allegations of its petition for removal. The present appeal followed. The denial of a motion for remand, such as we have here, is not a final decision appealable under § 1291 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Peterson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, et al., 268 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1959); Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 212 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1954); Tinkoff v. Holly, 209 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1954); Lewis v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 183 F.2d 29, 21 A.L.R.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1950). As an interlocutory decision it is not within the category of those orders appealable under § 1292 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.

The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This civil action was removed to the federal district court from the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which it commenced. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446. The appellant’s motion for remand was denied and the appellee was granted leave to amend the jurisdictional allegations of its petition for removal. The present appeal followed. The denial of a motion for remand, such as we have here, is not a final decision appealable under § 1291 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Peterson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, et al., 268 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1959); Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 212 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1954); Tinkoff v. Holly, 209 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1954); Lewis v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 183 F.2d 29, 21 A.L.R.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1950). As an interlocutory decision it is not within the category of those orders appealable under § 1292 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.

The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 149, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-thaysen-v-lumbermens-mutual-casualty-company-ca3-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack