Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Elizabeth W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant; Donna BUSCHELMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant; Marjorie L. SCHILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, 1975 — 519 F.2d 1086 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Elizabeth W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant; Donna BUSCHELMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant; Marjorie L. SCHILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
519 F.2d 1086·United States Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Elizabeth W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Donna BUSCHELMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Marjorie L. SCHILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDonnell Douglas CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 9-22 to 9-24.
Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
June 26, 1975.
James J. Foley, Huntington Beach, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
William M. Monroe, McDermed & Monroe, Santa Ana, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before CARTER, CHRISTENSEN and ESTES, Judges.
[MAJORITY]
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
It appearing that the District Court correctly determined that the Petitions for Removal in the captioned cases were not timely filed in accordance with Chapter 89 of Title 28, U.S.Code § 1446(b), to which § 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended, is expressly made subject; and that Chapter 89, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) proscribes review on appeal of the orders of the District Court remanding these cases to the State court. It is, therefore,
Ordered that these appeals are hereby dismissed.