Melvin Whitfield v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 557 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Melvin Whitfield v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., 557 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Asani Bolton v. JP Morgan Chase (scd, 2025-10-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asani Bolton v. JP Morgan Chase
D.S.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding remand unwarranted where state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction over a claim); 32 Am.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federico v. Lincoln Military Housing
E.D. Va. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir.1977) (holding that where federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction Congress must expressly provide for nonremovability to prevent removal); Callison v. Charleston Area Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shilling v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
D. Maryland · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir.1977) (holding that where concurrent jurisdiction exists, claim may be removed unless Congress states otherwise); Bahari v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2005 WL 3505604 , at *3 (D.Md.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schrader v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.
M.D.N.C. · 2002 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (holding that the existence of concurrent jurisdiction did not preclude removal in the context of the Federal Crop Insurance Act).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McWilliams v. Metropolitan Life
4th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir. 1977) (holding that where federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction Congress must expressly pro- vide for nonremovability to prevent removal); Callison v. Charleston Area Med.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Callison v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.
S.D.W. Va · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp., 557 F.2d. 413, 414 (4th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McConnell v. Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n Benefit Plans, District 1 (2×)
N.D. Cal. · 1981 · confidence medium
Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1508 (c): Whitfield v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 557 F.2d 413, 414 (4th Cir. 1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Melvin WHITFIELD, Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORP., Appellee
76-2274.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 30, 1977.
557 F.2d 413
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12628
P. C. Barwick, Jr., Wallace, Langley, Bar-wick, Llewellyn & Landis, Kinston, N. C., on brief, for appellant., Carl L. Tilghman, U. S. Atty., and Herman E. Gaskins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., on brief, for appellee.
Clark, Haynsworth, Per Curiam, Russell.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
[*414] PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Melvin Whitfield, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to remand this case to the state court. Whitfield filed this action in a North Carolina state court seeking indemnity for crop losses from the defendant under an insurance policy issued by the defendant. The defendant removed this case to the United States District Court. The plaintiff then moved to remand and the district court denied his motion.

The removal statute, Section 1441 of Title 28 is as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original-jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants to the district court of the United States of the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

The plaintiff says that 7 U.S.C.A. § 1508(c) gives him the right to bring his suit in either a federal or state court and keep it there. He argues that removal here defeats his choice of forum and that the “otherwise expressly provided” language of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a) applies here.

The plaintiff’s argument requires a strained interpretation of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1508(c). The pertinent part of that section is as follows:

In the event that any claim for indemnity under the provisions of this chapter is denied by the Corporation, an action on such claim may be brought against the Corporation in the United States district court, or in any court of record of the State having general jurisdiction, sitting in the district or county in which the insured farm is located, and jurisdiction is conferred upon such district courts to determine such controversies without regard to the amount of controversy.

It establishes that the state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over suits involving claims for indemnity against the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Nothing in the statute gives a plaintiff the right to bring his suit in a state court and keep it there. In limited circumstances, a defendant may be given the final choice as between courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Although there may be policy arguments in favor of giving plaintiffs under 1508(c) a choice of forum which cannot be disturbed, those arguments must be addressed to Congress and not to the courts.

We hold that 7 U.S.C.A. § 1508(c) does not expressly provide that actions brought in state courts pursuant to it may not be removed to federal courts and that the action here was properly removed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a).

AFFIRMED.