Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca

Last updated
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 2, 1995
Decided December 5, 1995
Full case nameThings Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca
Citations516 U.S. 124 ( more )
116 S. Ct. 494; 133 L. Ed. 2d 461; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 8531
Case history
Prior65 F.3d 169 (6th Cir. 1994); cert. granted, 514 U.S. 1095(1995).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceKennedy, joined by Ginsburg
ConcurrenceGinsburg, joined by Stevens
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1447, 1452

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when an action has been removed from state court to a United States Bankruptcy Court, and the bankruptcy court remands to state court because of a timely-raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the removal statute precludes a United States Court of Appeals from reviewing the order. [1]

Contents

Facts

Two corporations were parties to a litigation in an Ohio state court. The defendant filed a bankruptcy petition and sought to remove (transfer) the case to the federal Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court accepted the removal, but on appeal, the District Court reversed, holding that the removal petition had been filed after the statutory deadline.

The debtor filed a further appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but that court held that it lacked jurisdiction, because the removal statute barred the Court of Appeals from hearing appeals of remand orders. [2] The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the dismissal.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of a unanimous Court, which affirmed the Sixth Circuit's decision. He began by observing that "Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court." In 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), [3] Congress provided that orders remanding civil cases to state court are not reviewable on appeal. Although the Court's decision in Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer created an exception to this rule where the remand order was based on a ground not recognized by the removal statute, the exception did not apply here. The fact that the removal in this case was based on the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, [4] rather than the general removal statute did not change the result.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a short concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, observing that the precise limits of the rule created in Thermtron were not before the Court in this case.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, suggesting that the phrase "on any equitable ground" should be read to mean simply any ground for remand that the Bankruptcy Court or District Court believed was fair. She concluded that both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(d) and 1452(b) barred the Court of Appeals from reviewing the District Court's remand order.

Advocates

Steven David Cundra argued the cause for the petitioner, Things Remembered, Inc. John C. Weisensell argued the cause for the respondent, Anthony Petrarca. [5]

Related Research Articles

Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to foreign cruise ships in American waters.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for regulating ozone and particulate matter was challenged by the American Trucking Association, along with other private companies and the states of Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the tribe waived its sovereign immunity when it agreed to a contract containing an arbitration agreement.

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty. In the 1870s, the White Mountain Apache Tribe was placed on a reservation in Arizona. The case involved Fort Apache, a collection of buildings on the reservation which were transferred to the tribe by the United States Congress in 1960.

Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an interlocutory order of a district court, sitting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case, is in turn reviewable by the court of appeals when authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Although the Justices were unanimous in deciding the specific statutory interpretation issue concerning bankruptcy appeals that the case presented, they disagreed on the extent to which it was appropriate to refer to the legislative history of the statute in resolving the case.

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a United States District Court may not decline jurisdiction over a case that has properly been removed to it from state court on the ground that the court is backlogged with other cases, and that a District Court's refusal to hear a case on this ground may be reviewed by a writ of mandamus.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Harris v. Viegelahn, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified procedures for disposing wages after a debtor files for bankruptcy. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that if a debtor earns money after filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, and converts to Chapter 7 bankruptcy before the money is sent to creditors, the debtor is permitted to keep those funds.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government cannot revoke the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen based on an immaterial false statement made by the citizen in their naturalization application.

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the United States Patent and Trademark Office, when conducting an inter partes review, must make judgement on all patent claims contested by the petitioner.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

References

  1. ↑ Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995).
  2. ↑ Petrarca v. Things Remembered, Inc., 65F.3d169 (6th Cir.1994).
  3. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 1447(d) .
  4. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 1452.
  5. ↑ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1530.Missing or empty |title= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.