Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., No. D-2893

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Citation848 S.W.2d 82
Decision Date27 January 1993
PartiesMEYERLAND COMPANY and William Michael Adkinson, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Manager of the FSL, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. D-2893

Page 82

848 S.W.2d 82
MEYERLAND COMPANY and William Michael Adkinson, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Manager of the
FSL, Respondent.
No. D-2893.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Jan. 27, 1993.

This cause was removed from a state court of appeals to federal district court on appeal by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In re Meyerland, 960 F.2d 512 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1049, 113 S.Ct. 967, 122 L.Ed.2d 123 (1993). Subsequently, the state court of appeals granted the FDIC's motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 848 S.W.2d 165.

The court of appeals' order of dismissal was void because it occurred after the cause had been removed to federal court. Once removal is effected, "the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). It is therefore ordered that Petitioners' application for writ of error is granted, the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to that court to be abated in accordance with this opinion. Tex.R.App.P. 170.

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Stroud v. VBFSB Holding Corp., Nos. 04-94-00434-C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1996
    ...over the case. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Murray, 935 F.2d 89, 92 (5th Cir.1991); Meyerland Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 Appellees contend that the stipulation and protective order was in fact a sealing order, and therefore, the trial court retained jurisdiction over ......
  • Hsin-Chi-Su v. Vantage Drilling Co., NO. 14–14–00461–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 2015
    ...the state court loses subject-matter jurisdiction and may proceed no further unless the case is remanded); Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex.1993) (stating that once removal is effected the state court must proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded and that st......
  • Hallbauer v. Oviedo, NO. 09-13-00103-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 12, 2014
    ...granted), the state court was divested of jurisdiction over the medical malpractice suit. See Meyerland Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex. 1993). Thereafter, exclusive jurisdiction over such claims rested in the federal district court. See Stroud v. VBFSB Holding Corp.,......
  • In re Univ. of the Incarnate Word, No. 04–15–00242–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 24, 2015
    ...v. Ford Motor Co., 770 F.2d 461, 463 (5th Cir.1985) (actions taken by state court after removal are void); Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex.1993) (dismissal order entered after removal is void); see also Henke Grain Co., 658 S.W.2d at 346. Had the plea been filed in state c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Stroud v. VBFSB Holding Corp., Nos. 04-94-00434-C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1996
    ...over the case. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Murray, 935 F.2d 89, 92 (5th Cir.1991); Meyerland Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 Appellees contend that the stipulation and protective order was in fact a sealing order, and therefore, the trial court retained jurisdiction over ......
  • Hsin-Chi-Su v. Vantage Drilling Co., NO. 14–14–00461–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 14, 2015
    ...the state court loses subject-matter jurisdiction and may proceed no further unless the case is remanded); Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex.1993) (stating that once removal is effected the state court must proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded and that st......
  • Hallbauer v. Oviedo, NO. 09-13-00103-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 12, 2014
    ...granted), the state court was divested of jurisdiction over the medical malpractice suit. See Meyerland Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex. 1993). Thereafter, exclusive jurisdiction over such claims rested in the federal district court. See Stroud v. VBFSB Holding Corp.,......
  • In re Univ. of the Incarnate Word, No. 04–15–00242–CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 24, 2015
    ...v. Ford Motor Co., 770 F.2d 461, 463 (5th Cir.1985) (actions taken by state court after removal are void); Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex.1993) (dismissal order entered after removal is void); see also Henke Grain Co., 658 S.W.2d at 346. Had the plea been filed in state c......
  • 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