Florida Puts Federal Removal Jurisdiction and the Thirteenth Amendment in the Doghouse
Harley S. Tropin
Abstract
Harley S. Tropin
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.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
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