Opinion · District Court, N.D. Ohio

Richman Bros. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers

116 F. Supp. 800

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Date
1953-01-21
Topic
general

McNAMEE, District Judge. The arguments submitted in defendants’ brief in support of their motion for a reconsideration are but restatements of arguments previously submitted. In their reargument defendants imply that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Direct Transit Lines v. Local Union No. 406, 199 F.2d 89, approved the proposition that a District Court may remove a case even though it is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the ease on its merits. The court’s opinion does not *801support this claim.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Richman Bros. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
RICHMAN BROS. v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AM., (N.D.Ohio 1953)
116 F. Supp. 800
RICHMAN BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 29671.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio,
E.D.
January 21, 1953.
On application for Rehearing.

Denying Reconsideration, D.C.,114 F. Supp. 185.
Jones, Day, Cockley Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio (Luther Day, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Corrigan, MacMahon Corrigan, Cleveland, Ohio (William J. Corrigan and Moses Krislov, Cleveland, Ohio, and William J. Isaacson, New York City), for defendants.
McNAMEE, District Judge.
The arguments submitted in defendants' brief in support of their motion for a reconsideration are but restatements of arguments previously submitted. In their reargument defendants imply that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Direct Transit Lines v. Local Union No. 406,199 F.2d 89, approved the proposition that a District Court may remove a case even though it is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case on its merits. The court's opinion does notWest Page 801support this claim. The Court of Appeals commented upon In re Winn,213 U.S. 458,29 S.Ct. 515,53 L.Ed. 873, and among other things said: "The ultimate test was said to be whether the action could have been originally brought in the federal court. If so, jurisdiction should be retained." [199 F.2d 90.] The view expressed by this court in its original memorandum that "Jurisdiction to remove a case from state courts rests upon the District Court's jurisdiction to hear and decide the case so removed" [114 F. Supp. 190] is consistent with the above-quoted statement from Direct Transit Lines.

Defendants' application for reconsideration is overruled.West Page 802