In the case of Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sheets, doing business as Friona Independent Oil Co., upholding their right to remand a case back to state court after it had been removed to federal court by Shamrock Oil & Gas Corporation. The dispute arose when Shamrock sued for breach of contract and attempted to move the proceedings from Texas state courts, where it was initially filed, into federal jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction (parties residing in different states). However, Sheets successfully petitioned for remand back to state court arguing that under Section 28(b) and (c) of Judicial Code as amended by Act March 3rd 1911; a plaintiff cannot remove an action which he himself commenced in State Court even though there is diversity between parties involved. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation stating that allowing such removal would contravene Congressional intent behind these statutes designed primarily for defendant's benefit against potential local prejudice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets et al., argued that the majority's decision to deny Shamrock Oil's right to remove a suit from state court to federal court was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings by the Supreme Court. The dissent pointed out that, under Section 28 of the Judicial Code, a corporation is considered both a citizen of its state of incorporation and where it has its principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, they contended that since Shamrock Oil was incorporated in Delaware but had its principal place of business in Texas, it should be allowed to remove this lawsuit filed against them by another Texas company from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction rules. They also noted that denying such removal would unfairly limit corporations' access to federal courts and could potentially lead to biased outcomes if cases were only heard at local levels.