What jurisdictional issue arises from the accountant's removal of the breach of contract case?

The correct answer highlights a significant principle in civil procedure regarding the limitations on appellate review of remand orders. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), once a case has been remanded to state court after being removed to federal court, the appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review those remand orders, unless the removal was based on an appeal of a civil rights claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. This means that once the case is sent back to state court, the federal appellate court has no authority to re-evaluate that decision.

This principle is important in understanding how jurisdiction operates in the context of removal and remand, emphasizing the finality of a remand order when no exceptions apply. The case remains solely within the purview of the state court unless specific federally allowed circumstances arise.

The other potential issues, while they may raise important considerations, do not align with the legal principle governing the non-reviewability of remand orders. For example, considerations about diversity of citizenship would pertain to the original grounds for removal, and local jurisdiction rules relate to the authority of state courts rather than the appellate court's jurisdiction over remand orders.