Thomas Wayne Milligan v. Laurie Ann Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas Wayne Milligan v. Laurie Ann Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cook v. JC Penney Co., Inc. (iand, 1983-02-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cook v. JC Penney Co., Inc.
N.D. Iowa · 1983 · confidence medium
See also, State of Nebraska v. Forbes, 588 F.2d 631, 632 (8th Cir.1978); Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. State of Neb.
D. Neb. · 1981 · confidence medium
Sullivan v. Missouri, 588 F.2d 579, 580 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (divorce action removed because of claim of unlawful sex discrimination; action was remanded).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long Island Railroad v. United Transportation Union
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · confidence medium
Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1973); Washington v. American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 460 F.2d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 1972); Bailey v. Logan Square Typographers, Inc., 441 F.2d 47, 51-52 (7th Cir. 1971) (Stevens, J.); Debevoise v. Rutland Railway, 291 F.2d 379, 380 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 876 , 82 S.Ct. 123 , 7 L.Ed.2d 77 (1961).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucille Dorothy Peltier v. Robert Ernest Peltier (2×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20 , 95 S.Ct. 1591 , 44 L.Ed.2d 121 (1975); Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1973); Pennsylvania ex rel.
cited Cited "see" The State of Nebraska v. Raymond Forbes, the State of Nebraska v. Neva Forbes, the State of Nebraska v. James K. Lehman
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see" Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Cotton
N.D. Ga. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Board of Education v. AFSCME, 401 F.Supp. 687 (N.D.Ga.1975), Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973), Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. Litvak Meat Co., 295 F.Supp. 809 (D.C.Col.1968).
cited Cited "see" Alsager v. DISTRICT COURT OF POLK CTY., IOWA,(JD)
S.D. Iowa · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973); Dotlich v. Kane, 497 F.2d 390 (8th Cir. 1974); Bilotta v. Bilotta, No. 74-1443 (8th Cir. Oct. 18, 1974).
cited Cited "see" David Dotlich and Kimberly Ann Dotlich, His Minor Daughter v. Stanley D. Kane
8th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bartulica, Md v. Paculdo, Md
W.D. Mo. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973); Bass v. State, 381 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1967); Patterson v. Patterson, 381 F.Supp. 1029 (D.Colo.1974).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Board of Ed. of Atlanta v. AMERICAN FED. OF S., C. & ME
N.D. Ga. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., PAAC v. Rizzo, 502 F.2d 306 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 , 95 S.Ct. 780 , 42 L.Ed.2d 804 (1975), Milligan v. Milligan, 484 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1973), Spring City Flying Service, Inc. v. Vogel, 281 F.Supp. 594 (E.D.Wis.1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas Wayne MILLIGAN, Appellant,
v.
Laurie Ann MILLIGAN, Appellee
73-1382.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 26, 1973.
484 F.2d 446
Paul A. Kyyhkynen, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Heaney, Bright, Ross.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Thomas W. Milligan was a defendant in a divorce action brought by Laurie Ann Milligan in the Minnesota courts. Mr. Milligan attempted to remove the action to federal court, but after a hearing, the action was remanded to state court. Mr. Milligan appealed to this Court and Mrs. Milligan has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the order of remand pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court. [1] We grant the motion.

On March 16, 1973, a hearing was held in state court on a motion for temporary relief. Mr. Milligan was ordered to pay temporary child support and attorney’s fees. He was ordered to move from the couple’s home and to give up, temporarily, possession of the family auto. Mrs. Milligan was awarded temporary custody of the children.

On April 12, 1973, Mr. Milligan filed a petition for removal of the action to federal court. The substance of the petition was that the prior state court order was the product of unlawful sex discrimination since both parties stood on an equal footing in all respects, including employment experience, income earned, and ability to care for the children. A hearing was held and the district court found that the action was not subject to removal. The court then ordered the action remanded to state court.

In granting the pending motion, we make the following comments:

a. Removal cannot be maintained in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) since the citizenship of the parties is not diverse. Blank v. Blank, 320 F.Supp. 1389, 1390 (W.D.Pa.1971).
b. Removal cannot be maintained in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) since divorce actions do not engender a federal question, Blank v. Blank, supra, at 1390-1391 & n. 3, and, removal-cannot be maintained where the defendant sets up a federal law as a defense to a nonfederal claim. C. WRIGHT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS § 38 at 131 (1971).
c. Normally orders of remand are not reviewable on appeal, except in civil rights cases. LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, supra, § 41 at 147. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
d. Removal cannot be maintained in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because removal must be predicated upon a specific right under a law in terms of racial equality. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel Gittman v. Gittman, 451 F.2d 155, 156 & n. 3 (3d Cir. 1971).

For the foregoing reasons the motion for summary affirmance is hereby granted.

1

. Although the motion is denominated a motion pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules of this Court, we think it proper to consider the motion as one in the nature of a Rule 8 motion,