Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins
Headline: Court denies review of whether denials of remand over forum-selection clauses are immediately appealable, leaving lower-court rules intact and delaying appellate decision on where disputes must be tried.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the Seventh Circuit’s rule that a district court’s denial of a remand motion based on a forum-selection clause is not immediately appealable in place.
- Leaves circuit split unresolved, delaying national guidance on forum-selection appeals.
- Forces parties to wait until final judgment to appeal remand denials.
- Can prolong litigation and let disputed forum choices stand through trial.
Summary
Background
In 1977 a doctor and a company signed an employment contract saying any disputes would be decided in the Cook County, Illinois, court. In 1983 the company sued in that state court but the doctor removed the case to federal court because the parties were from different states. The company asked the federal judge to send the case back to state court (a motion to remand), saying the contract required it; the federal judge denied that motion and the company sought immediate review in the appeals court.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the courts of appeals could hear an immediate appeal when a federal judge refuses to enforce a contract’s forum clause and won’t send the case back to the state court. The Seventh Circuit said no, rejecting several legal routes for immediate review and distinguishing such denials from injunctions or stays. The Third Circuit had reached a different result in a similar case, creating a conflict among appeals courts. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve that disagreement.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court denied review, the split among federal appeals courts remains. In circuits that follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach, parties who lose remand motions generally must wait until final judgment to appeal, which can prolong litigation and leave forum questions unresolved during trial. This denial is not a final decision on the legal rules and could be reconsidered in a later case.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the denial and argued the Court should have granted review to resolve the clear conflict between circuits.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?