Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

holding that defendant was judicially estopped from asserting subject matter jurisdiction because it had previously won a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | holding that a District Court’s remand order based on a lack of diversity was “unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise” | holding that a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order to remand where that order is based on the district court’s lack of jurisdiction | stating that remands by the district court to the state court from which removal was attempted are “not reviewable” | adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981 | Thermtron does not apply where district court remands based on statutory grounds even if it employs erroneous principles in reaching its conclusion | remand order not reviewable even when the district court "had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction” | Thermtron does not apply where district court remands based on statutory grounds even if it employs erroneous principles in reaching its conclusion | plaintiff sued corporation for a variety of torts, and the corporation’s citizenship was only important for purposes of determining whether the suit would proceed in Texas state court or federal district court | “The District Court’s remand order was . . . unreviewable by the Court of Ap- peals, by mandamus or otherwise.” | “[E]ven though the County asserted subject matter jurisdiction in its removal notice, it is not precluded from challenging subject matter jurisdiction on appeal.” | remand orders under Section 1447(c) are not reviewable by reason of Section 1447(d) | "Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that 'the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction'; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d | remand orders based on Sec. 1447(c) for lack of jurisdiction are not reviewable | “Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that ‘the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction’; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d | denying stay of remand order