Burgraff v. Burgraff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “generally nonremovable claims brought under the Securities Act of 14 1933 may be removed to federal court if they come within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)”
• finding that Congress intended for bankruptcy litigation to be centralized in a federal forum
• holding, for this reason among others, that the specificity canon does not prevent the bankruptcy- removal provision, 28 U.S.C. §1452, from superseding §22(a) of the 1933 Act to the extent of any inconsistency
• comparing § 1452 to § 1441(a) and concluding that § 22(a) did not bar removal pursuant to § 1452
• declining to certify a jurisdictional question on appeal because there was an alternative basis for jurisdiction and thus the question was not “controlling”
• applying the Supreme Court’s 6 statutory conflict analysis from Radzanower to find the bankruptcy removal provision and the 7 Securities Act’s removal bar equally specific

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).