## Facts

- A widow sued an employer and its insurer in Tennessee chancery court for workers’ compensation death benefits after her husband allegedly died from a work-related accident.
- She sought burial expenses plus $5,000 in benefits, the statutory maximum, for herself and two minor children.
- Tennessee law required payment in installments and allowed termination upon events such as the widow’s death or remarriage or the children reaching a specified age.
- Defendants removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The widow moved to remand, arguing (among other grounds) that the federal amount-in-controversy minimum was not met and that removal notice was deficient.
- The district court dismissed for improper Tennessee venue without deciding remand or federal jurisdiction.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered remand to state court, holding the amount in controversy was not met because installment payments could end before totaling the jurisdictional minimum.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of appeals’ direction to remand a removed case to state court is reviewable by the Supreme Court, and whether issuance of the mandate defeats Supreme Court jurisdiction.
2. Whether a claim seeking the statutory maximum of $5,000 in workers’ compensation death benefits satisfies the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement despite installment payments and possible termination under conditions subsequent.
3. Whether other asserted grounds for remand or dismissal (including removal-procedure objections and state venue/jurisdiction arguments) should be resolved by the court of appeals on remand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that a court of appeals’ direction to remand is reviewable on certiorari and that issuance of the mandate does not defeat Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- The Court held the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied because the plaintiff’s claim put the statutory maximum liability ($5,000) in dispute, notwithstanding contingencies that might reduce actual payments.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals’ remand order and remanded for consideration of unresolved arguments not reached below.

## Legal Principles

- Supreme Court certiorari review extends to a court of appeals decision directing remand to state court; issuance of the mandate does not bar review.
- For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the right asserted or maximum liability demanded on the face of the claim, not by speculative future events that might reduce ultimate recovery.
- Installment payment structures and conditions subsequent that may terminate benefits do not, by themselves, reduce the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum when the claim seeks a higher statutory maximum.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that remand directions by courts of appeals are reviewable and that a workers’ compensation death-benefit claim seeking the statutory maximum satisfies the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement even if the benefits may end early due to later contingencies, then returned the case for resolution of remaining procedural and venue-related issues.


Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Flowers, 330 U.S. 464 (1947)