Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 22 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22

22

BENEFICIAL NAT. BANK v. ANDERSON

Scalia, J., dissenting

(quite illogically) suspends the normal rules of removal jurisdiction. Since no one asserts that the National Bank Act is modeled after the LMRA, the state-law claim pleaded here cannot be removed, and it is left to the state courts to dismiss it. From the Court's judgment to the contrary, I respectfully dissent.

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22

Last modified: October 4, 2007