Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
377 F.3d 592 (2004)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In 1994, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seized the property of Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. (Grable) (plaintiff) due to Grable’s unpaid taxes. Although Internal Revenue Code (code) § 6335(a) required the IRS to personally notify Grable about the seizure, the IRS notified Grable by certified mail, which Grable received. The IRS sold the property to Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (Darue) (defendant) in December 1994. In December 2000, Grable brought a state-court quiet-title suit challenging the sale on the ground that the IRS failed to strictly comply with § 6335(a). Darue removed the case to federal court on federal-question-jurisdiction grounds. Grable moved to remand the case to state court, contending that federal-question jurisdiction was lacking. The district court denied remand and ultimately awarded summary judgment to Darue. Grable appealed. In addition to reiterating the alleged lack of federal-question jurisdiction, Grable contended that it was irrelevant that code § 6339(b)(2) provided that a tax sale was valid even if the IRS only substantially complied with “provisions of law” because (1) permitting substantial compliance would negate § 6335(a)’s notice requirements and (2) “provisions of law” referred to state law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boggs, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.