Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Diana Searcy v. Edgar Searcy, 60 F.3d 837, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal arose from a divorce proceeding that was originally filed in Kansas state court but was removed to federal district court by the defendant. The district court remanded the case back to state court because federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over divorce cases. The appeals court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Diana Searcy v. Edgar Searcy, 60 F.3d 837, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal arose from a divorce proceeding that was originally filed in Kansas state court but was removed to federal district court by the defendant. The district court remanded the case back to state court because federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over divorce cases. The appeals court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-07-06 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 60 F.3d 837 Docket: 95-3179

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal arose from a divorce proceeding that was originally filed in Kansas state court but was removed to federal district court by the defendant. The district court remanded the case back to state court because federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over divorce cases. The appeals court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views2 pages

    Diana Searcy v. Edgar Searcy, 60 F.3d 837, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal arose from a divorce proceeding that was originally filed in Kansas state court but was removed to federal district court by the defendant. The district court remanded the case back to state court because federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over divorce cases. The appeals court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the remand order under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    60 F.

    3d 837
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Diana SEARCY, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Edgar SEARCY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 95-3179.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    July 6, 1995.

    Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    This matter is before the court on appellant's motion for stay pending appeal.
    We must, however, examine our jurisdiction over the underlying appeal before
    we can consider the stay motion. Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp.,
    993 F.2d 755, 756-57 (10th Cir.1993), aff'd, 114 S.Ct. 1992 (1994).

    Appellee filed a petition for divorce in Kansas state court. Appellant responded,
    asserting several counterclaims, and then removed the case to federal district
    court. The district court remanded the case to state court because it was a
    divorce proceeding and the federal district court lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 2215 (1992);
    Vaughan v. Smithson, 883 F.2d 63, 64 (10th Cir.1989).

    We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 28 U.S.C.


    1447(d); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976).
    Appellant's assertion of counterclaims raising federal questions does not give
    the court jurisdiction. Takeda v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d
    815, 821-22 (9th Cir.1985).

    APPEAL DISMISSED.

    Mandate shall issue forthwith.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    You might also like