# Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger, (01-1447), Kimberly James, Intervening (01-1516)

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2002 · 288 F.3d 732

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494960

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara GRUTTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee BOLLINGER, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants (01-1447), Kimberly James, Et Al., Intervening Defendants-Appellants (01-1516)
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 14, 2002
- **Citations:** 288 F.3d 732; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9126; 2002 WL 976468
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Siler
- **Judges:** Martin, Boggs, Siler, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494960

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a Marks holding “must necessarily produce results with which a majority of the Court from that case would agree.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that “arising under” jurisdiction exists where one invokes a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law

## Opinion text

*815 SILER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in the dissent by Judge Boggs on the merits. I write separately for the reason that I do not concur in the addition of the procedural appendix, not because I question its accuracy, but because I feel that it is unnecessary for the resolution of this case. If the procedural appendix were not filed, then the responses filed in the concurrences by Judges Moore and Clay would also have been unnecessary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494960. Public record. Not legal advice.