recognizing that a state court may retain jurisdiction over an action that is completely pre-empted if the defendant does not elect to have the case removed to federal court
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that a state court may retain jurisdiction over an action that is completely pre-empted if the defendant does not elect to have the case removed to federal court
- holding that if a federal cause of action completely preempts a state cause of action, the complaint comes within the scope of the federal cause of action and necessarily “arises under” federal law
- holding that a state was required to enforce federal law
- holding that § 301 “was fashioned by Congress to place sanctions behind agreements to arbitrate grievance disputes” and “[a]n action arising under § 301 is controlled by federal substantive law even though it is brought in a state court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
concurring.
I agree that the case before us was removable to the Federal District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1441 .
The District Judge not only denied a motion to remand the case to the state court but also dissolved the state court injunction, and it is only by virtue of the latter order that an appeal was possible at this stage of the litigation. American Dredging Co. v. Local 25, 338 F. 2d 837 , 838, n. 2.
As the Court says, it is not clear whether or not the District Judge dissolved the injunction “because [he] felt that action was required by Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195 ,” ante, at 561, n. 4. Accordingly, the Court expressly reserves decision on the effect of Sinclair in the circumstances presented by this case. The Court will, no doubt, have an opportunity to reconsider the scope and continuing validity of Sinclair upon an appropriate future occasion.