Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

711 F.2d 626

Docket No. 83-1053

Compton v. Compton

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided August 8, 1983

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

3 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether the remand order be viewed as one of abstention or as one grounded in a perceived want of jurisdiction, we are not empowered to review it.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Sykes v. Texas Air Corp., Bissonnet Investments LLC v. Quinlan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2004

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

140198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1983.

William Lewis Sessions, John M. Tutt, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Marita Montgomery Emmett, Evelyn H. Biery, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

John Compere, San Antonio, Tex., for other interested party for minor child.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before GEE, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Acting under its "related case" jurisdiction, 28 United States Code Section 1471(b), the bankruptcy court assumed removal jurisdiction of this divorce case in which one of the parties had taken voluntary bankruptcy, entering orders concerning child custody, child support and so on. Pursuant to 28 United States Code Section 1334(b), the district court entertained an appeal of the bankruptcy court's action in taking jurisdiction and remanded the divorce case to state court, concluding that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the marital status of the debtor. The debtor appeals the remand order.

¶2

Whether the remand order be viewed as one of abstention or as one grounded in a perceived want of jurisdiction, we are not empowered to review it. 28 United States Code Sections 1471(d) and 1478. The appeal is

¶3

DISMISSED.

/711/f2d/626 · .json · Public domain