First Page
923
Abstract
This Article examines the removability of civil actions that include either pendent claims or pendent parties joined in addition to parties against whom federal questions are alleged. It discusses the remandability of those civil actions or segments of them, and comments on the law governing appellate review of district court remands to state court.' In an effort to reach the wisest resolutions of the various issues posed, it confronts issues of statutory construction, interprets Supreme Court cases, especially Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer,'and wades in the murky waters of federalism. In the course of this enterprise, the Article analyzes and strongly takes issue with the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. The implications of Carnegie-Mellon also are explored.
The Article focuses on the problems that have arisen and can arise in federal question cases removable, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. sections 1441(a) and (b).' It is noteworthy that these issues arise frequently, as evidenced by the number of pertinent decisions, and promise to continue to plague the federal courts in view of the substantial number of cases removed to federal court. The issues of removal jurisdiction, remandability, and reviewability tackled here are questions of federal court jurisdiction, powers, and discretion, that broadly implicate our federalism.
Recommended Citation
Joan Steinman,
Removal, Remand, and Review in Pendent Claim and Pendent Party Cases,
41 Vanderbilt Law Review
923
(1988)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol41/iss5/3