469 U.S. 890 (1984), 83-1759, Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle v. Perkins

Docket Nº:No. 83-1759
Citation:469 U.S. 890, 105 S.Ct. 265, 83 L.Ed.2d 201
Party Name:ROHRER, HIBLER, & REPLOGLE, INC. v. Robert D. PERKINS
Case Date:October 09, 1984
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 890

469 U.S. 890 (1984)

105 S.Ct. 265, 83 L.Ed.2d 201

ROHRER, HIBLER, & REPLOGLE, INC.

v.

Robert D. PERKINS

No. 83-1759

United States Supreme Court.

October 9, 1984

OPINION

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, with whom Justice BLACKMUN joins, dissenting.

In 1977, respondent, Dr. Robert Perkins, signed a contract of employment with petitioner Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. The contract provided that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., would have jurisdiction over any disputes that might arise between the parties. In 1983, such a dispute arose, and petitioner filed suit against respondent in the Cook County Circuit Court. Respondent removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on grounds of diversity. Arguing that the contract required that the dispute be adjudicated in the Cook County court, petitioner filed a motion to remand to the state court. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that the contractual provision was not a mandatory forum selection clause, and petitioner attempted to appeal the ruling.

Page 891

The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to remand. 728 F.2d 860. The court rejected petitioner's theory that the order was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it fell into "that small class [of orders] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The court noted that there was no reason to believe that the order would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. The court also declined to hold the order reviewable under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, on the ground that a petition for a writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. Finally, the court held that the order was not reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP