Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

Decision Date25 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1036,76-1036
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1977. See 431 U.S. 975, 97 S.Ct. 2941.


This tort action was removed from the Texas state courts to the United States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship but was remanded as having been "improperly removed" when it seemed that there was not complete diversity among the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by mandamus, ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals erred. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that "the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction"; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) unmistakably commands that the order "remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . ." The District Court's remand order was plainly within the bounds of § 1447(c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976), is not to the contrary, for there the District Court remanded "on grounds wholly different from those upon which § 1447(c) permits remand." Id., at 344, 96 S.Ct., at 589. Thermtron did not question but re-emphasized the rule that § 1447(c) remands are not reviewable.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
172 cases
  • Browning v. Navarro
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 1, 1984
    ...the basis of a remand statute even if the federal court was in error in applying the statute); Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (per curiam), reh'g denied, 431 U.S. 975, 97 S.Ct. 2941, 53 L.Ed.2d 1073, on remand 556 F.2d 370 (5th Cir.1977......
  • Romulus Community Schools, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 7, 1984
    ...1447(d) as long as the order is made pursuant to Sec. 1447(c). Id. at 343, 96 S.Ct. at 589. See also Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). Several decisions show that the appeals courts will liberally construe the district court's reasons f......
  • McGinnis v. Ingram Equipment Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 27, 1990
    ...and not as a mandate. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 542 F.2d 297, 298 (5th Cir.1976) (Hill, J., dissenting), rev'd, 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). This is a hard case. The court, today, makes bad law. Though tempted, I cannot join. The court faces a "hard" case "whene......
  • Bendectin Litigation, In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 30, 1988
    ... ... Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct ... The company issued a uniform set of warnings and instructions for use ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT