1987Journal of legislationOpen access

May a Federal Court Remand a Case to State Court After Federal Claims Have Been Deleted

Joseph P. Bauer

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This Article provides a preview of Carnegie-Mellon University v. Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1987. This case concerns the circumstances under which a lawsuit, properly commenced in a state court and then removed before trial to a federal court, may be sent back (remanded) to the state court. On one level, this case seems only to involve technical interpretations of federal statutes governing procedure in the federal courts. At another level, however, it involves more general and important issues. Among these are how to allocate judicial power and responsibility between the state and federal courts; the authority of federal judges to expand limitations on federal statutes, through exercising judicial discretion and the rights of individuals to control the forum for litigating their disputes by changing their original complaint.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Article provides a preview of Carnegie-Mellon University v. Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1987. This case concerns the circumstances under which a lawsuit, properly commenced in a state court and then removed before trial to a federal court, may be sent back (remanded) to the state court. On one level, this case seems only to involve technical interpretations of federal statutes governing procedure in the federal courts. At another level, however, it involves more general and important issues. Among these are how to allocate judicial power and responsibility between the state and federal courts; the authority of federal judges to expand limitations on federal statutes, through exercising judicial discretion and the rights of individuals to control the forum for litigating their disputes by changing their original complaint.

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

This Article provides a preview of Carnegie-Mellon University v. Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1987. This case concerns the circumstances under which a lawsuit, properly commenced in a state court and then removed before trial to a federal court, may be sent back (remanded) to the state court. On one level, this case seems only to involve technical interpretations of federal statutes governing procedure in the federal courts. At another level, however, it involves more general and important issues. Among these are how to allocate judicial power and responsibility between the state and federal courts; the authority of federal judges to expand limitations on federal statutes, through exercising judicial discretion and the rights of individuals to control the forum for litigating their disputes by changing their original complaint.

Key concepts: Remand (court procedure), Federal court, Law, Political science, Original jurisdiction, State (computer science), Court of record, Court of equity

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
May a Federal Court Remand a Case to State Court After Federal Claims Have Been Deleted — Research Paper | ScholarLens