as an adjunct of the superior courts,” Wheeler v. Shoemaker, supra, 78 F.R.D. at 219, the court concluded that reference to the panel so established amounts to little more than furnishing the state court an opportunity to pass upon the claim initially. To refer the action to a panel appointed by the state court, therefore, is contrary to the congressional grant of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 221. The district court rested this basis for its holding on Railway Co. v. Whitton’s Administrator, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 270, 20 L.Ed. 571 (1871), in which the Supreme Court held that Wisconsin could not limit enforcement of a state-created cause of action for wrongful death to its own courts. See also Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 532, 42 S.Ct. 188, 188, 66 L.Ed. 352 (1922) (<HOLDING>): [T]he Federal Constitution confers upon
holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that the hague convention applied because while minnesota law permitted a foreign corporation to be served with process through the secretary of states office the applicable statute also required the secretary of state to mail a copy of the summons to the foreign corporation before service was effectuated holding unconstitutional an arkansas statute causing a foreign corporation to lose its license to do business within the state if either through filing an action or through removal it invoked the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts holding that the plain language of the diversity jurisdiction statute permitted a workmens compensation claim to be filed as an original action in federal court even though congress clearly intended to prohibit the removal of such claims congress used language specifically barring removal of such cases from state to federal courts and at the same time left unchanged the old language which just as specifically permits civil suits to be filed in federal courts in cases where there are both diversity of citizenship and the prescribed jurisdictional amount in this situation we must take the intent of congress with regard to the filing of diversity cases in federal district courts to be that which its language clearly sets forth congress could very easily have used language to bar filing of workmens compensation suits by the insurer as well as removal of such suits and it could easily do so still