Ormet Corporation v. H. John Rogers, and All Other Persons Aiding, Abetting, Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names Are Unknown to The

Sixth Circuit

Ormet Corporation v. H. John Rogers, and All Other Persons Aiding, Abetting, Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names Are Unknown to The

811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35089, 1986 WL 18549

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1986

Docket86-4047

StatusUnpublished

This text of 811 F.2d 607 (Ormet Corporation v. H. John Rogers, and All Other Persons Aiding, Abetting, Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names Are Unknown to The) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ormet Corporation v. H. John Rogers, and All Other Persons Aiding, Abetting, Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names Are Unknown to The, 811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35089, 1986 WL 18549 (6th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

811 F.2d 607

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
ORMET CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
H. John ROGERS, and all Other Persons Aiding, Abetting,
Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names
are Unknown to the Plaintiffs,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-4047.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1986.

Before JONES and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to this panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the record indicates that the case originated in the Common Pleas Court of Monroe County, Ohio. On the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441, removed the action to the District Court in Columbus, Ohio. The district court remanded the action to the Common Pleas Court of Monroe County after determining that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional amount. Defendant appealed.

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d), an order remanding a case removed pursuant to Sec. 1441 is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise. However, if a court has remanded a case on grounds other than those specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c), an appellate court may correct the error through the use of a writ of mandamus. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976); In re Romulus Community Schools, 729 F.2d 431 (6th Cir.1984). A remand order based on Sec. 1447 grounds is immune from review even if it is clearly erroneous on its face. Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723 (1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baasch, 644 F.2d 94 (2nd Cir.1981).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9(d)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

811 F.2d 607

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
ORMET CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
H. John ROGERS, and all Other Persons Aiding, Abetting,
Conspiring or Confederating With Him Whose Names
are Unknown to the Plaintiffs,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-4047.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1986.

Before JONES and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to this panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the record indicates that the case originated in the Common Pleas Court of Monroe County, Ohio. On the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441, removed the action to the District Court in Columbus, Ohio. The district court remanded the action to the Common Pleas Court of Monroe County after determining that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional amount. Defendant appealed.

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d), an order remanding a case removed pursuant to Sec. 1441 is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise. However, if a court has remanded a case on grounds other than those specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c), an appellate court may correct the error through the use of a writ of mandamus. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976); In re Romulus Community Schools, 729 F.2d 431 (6th Cir.1984). A remand order based on Sec. 1447 grounds is immune from review even if it is clearly erroneous on its face. Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723 (1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baasch, 644 F.2d 94 (2nd Cir.1981).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9(d)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 F.2d 607, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35089, 1986 WL 18549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ormet-corporation-v-h-john-rogers-and-all-other-pe-ca6-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack