Thomas A. Benson and Susan J. Benson v. Si Handling Systems, Inc., and Bt Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “even non- appealable orders,” such as remands covered by section 1447(d), “are law of the case and may be revisited only when intervening events justify that step” (citation omitted)
• noting that there was nothing in the Judicial Code forbidding successive removals and thus the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's decision to remand on that ground
• noting that there was nothing in the Judicial Code forbidding successive removals and thus the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to remand on that ground
• holding that remand order in successive removal is reviewable
• noting that there was nothing in the Judicial Code forbidding successive removals and thus the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision to remand on that ground
• explaining that “[n]othing in § 1446 forecloses multiple petitions for removal” as circumstances can change, “for example, by dismissal of a party whose presence spoiled complete diversity of citizenship, or by a disclosure that the stakes exceed the jurisdictional amount”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).