In the case of Kerr et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California et al., 1975, a group of shareholders filed suit against their corporation and its directors in state court alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but plaintiffs sought remand back to state court arguing that there was no complete diversity among parties as required by law. The district court denied remand and certified an interlocutory appeal which was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 1291. The Supreme Court held that mandamus relief is not available when a party seeks review over denial or granting motions for remand orders in cases removed from state courts under Section 1447(d). It further clarified that such decisions are only reviewable on appeal after final judgment has been rendered at trial level, emphasizing Congress's intent to limit appellate interference with ongoing litigation process at district courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Kerr et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a writ of mandamus was an overreach of judicial power and undermined principles of federalism. He contended that such extraordinary relief should only be granted in cases where there is no other adequate means to attain relief or when a party’s right to issuance is clear and indisputable, neither condition being met in this case according to him. He also expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially interfere with state court proceedings by allowing federal courts too much discretion in deciding whether they have jurisdiction over certain matters before those issues are fully litigated at the state level.