You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Adair v. Amerus Leasing, Inc.

Citation: 86 F. App'x 736Docket: No. 03-60304

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 8, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 24, 2003, is interpreted as remanding the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The appellate court confirms its jurisdiction to review this remand order. After examining the record and considering the parties' briefs and arguments, the appellate court concludes that the district court appropriately evaluated the relevant factors for remand as outlined in § 1367 and did not abuse its discretion in sending the case back to state court. The appellate court's decision to affirm the district court's order is made explicit. Additionally, under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this opinion is designated for non-publication and holds no precedential value except in specific circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Legal Issues Addressed

Evaluation of Remand Factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Application: The district court's decision to remand the case was based on appropriate evaluation of relevant factors as outlined in § 1367, and it was determined that there was no abuse of discretion.

Reasoning: After examining the record and considering the parties' briefs and arguments, the appellate court concludes that the district court appropriately evaluated the relevant factors for remand as outlined in § 1367 and did not abuse its discretion in sending the case back to state court.

Jurisdiction to Review Remand Orders

Application: The appellate court confirms its jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Reasoning: The appellate court confirms its jurisdiction to review this remand order.

Non-Precedential Value of Opinion

Application: This opinion is designated for non-publication and holds no precedential value, except under specific circumstances as mentioned in the rules.

Reasoning: Additionally, under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this opinion is designated for non-publication and holds no precedential value except in specific circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.