1976•University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository (University of Miami)Requires access

Florida Puts Federal Removal Jurisdiction and the Thirteenth Amendment in the Doghouse

Harley S. Tropin

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

A Florida Supreme Court decision contradicts prior law by finding that, during an attempted removal to federal court, the state trial court did not lose jurisdiction if the removal was improper. The author suggests that imprisonment under the state court's order, while removal was attempted, was a denial of due process. In addition, it is contended that the order compelling the defendants to comply with a personal services contract or face imprisionment for contempt, contravenes the thirteenth amendment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A Florida Supreme Court decision contradicts prior law by finding that, during an attempted removal to federal court, the state trial court did not lose jurisdiction if the removal was improper. The author suggests that imprisonment under the state court's order, while removal was attempted, was a denial of due process. In addition, it is contended that the order compelling the defendants to comply with a personal services contract or face imprisionment for contempt, contravenes the thirteenth amendment.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A Florida Supreme Court decision contradicts prior law by finding that, during an attempted removal to federal court, the state trial court did not lose jurisdiction if the removal was improper. The author suggests that imprisonment under the state court's order, while removal was attempted, was a denial of due process. In addition, it is contended that the order compelling the defendants to comply with a personal services contract or face imprisionment for contempt, contravenes the thirteenth amendment.

Key concepts: Amendment, Federal jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Law, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Florida Puts Federal Removal Jurisdiction and the Thirteenth Amendment in the Doghouse — Research Paper | ScholarLens