Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/311/538/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:17:56+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 311 › Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
A judgment of a District Court, ruled by the state law and correctly applying that law as interpreted by the state supreme court when the judgment was rendered, must be reversed on appeal if, in the meantime, the state court ha disapproved of its former rulings and adopted a contrary interpretation. P. 311 U. S. 541.
Certiorari, post, p. 635, to review the affirmance of judgment dismissing an action for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
This certiorari brings before us for review the determination of the Circuit Court of Appeals that cases at law sounding in tort, brought in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship, are ruled by the state law as declared by the state's highest court when the judgment of the trial court is entered, and not by the state law as so declared at the time of entry of the appellate court's order of affirmance or reversal. We granted the certiorari because of the uncertainty of the law upon this question as contained in this Court's former decisions.
"So, when contracts and transactions have been entered into, and rights have accrued thereon under a particular state of the decisions, or when there has been no decision of the state tribunals, the federal courts properly claim the right to adopt their own interpretation of the law applicable to the case, although a different interpretation may be adopted by the state courts after such rights have accrued. [Footnote 10]"
"It is in the general true that the province of an appellate court is only to enquire whether a judgment when rendered was erroneous or not. But if, subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed or its obligation denied. "
It is true this Court was speaking of the intervention of a treaty, and also that it expressed a caution against retrospective operation between private parties, but the principle quoted has found acceptance in a variety of situations. Kibbe v. Ditto [Footnote 12] and Moores v. Citizens' National Bank [Footnote 13] hold that subsequent decisions as to married women's rights control review. Sioux County v. National Surety Company [Footnote 14] gives effect to a later decision on a statute as to surety bonds. In Oklahoma Packing Company v. Oklahoma Gas Company, [Footnote 15] we applied as determinative a state decision, clarifying the local law, handed down after the decree then under consideration here.
entertain further proceedings under their sanctions. [Footnote 20] These instances indicate that the dominant principle is that nisi prius and appellate tribunals alike should conform their orders to the state law as of the time of the entry. Intervening and conflicting decisions will thus cause the reversal of judgments which were correct when entered.
Respondent earnestly presses upon us the desirability of applying the rule that appellate courts will review a judgment only to determine whether it was correct when made; that any other review would make the federal courts subordinate to state courts, and their judgments subject to changes of attitude or membership of state courts, whether that change was normal or induced for the purpose of affecting former federal rulings. While not insensible to possible complications, we are of the view that, until such time as a case is no longer sub judice, the duty rests upon federal courts to apply state law under the Rules of Decision statute in accordance with the then controlling decision of the highest state court. [Footnote 21] Any other conclusion would but perpetuate the confusion and injustices arising from inconsistent federal and state interpretations of state law.
Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 110 F.2d 310, 312.
Ohio Gen.Code (Page, 1937) § 1465-70.
Zajachuck v. Willard Storage Battery Co., 106 Ohio St. 538, 140 N.E. 405; Mabley & Carew Co. v. Lee, 129 Ohio St. 69, 73, 193 N.E. 745.
Triff v. National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co., 135 Ohio St.191, 205, 20 N.E.2d 232.
304 U. S. 304 U.S. 64.
U.S.Code, Title 28, § 725.
"Laws of States as rules of decision. The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."
41 U. S. 16 Pet. 1.
Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595, 59 U. S. 599; Morgan v. Courtenius, 20 How. 1; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 107 U. S. 33; Concordia Insurance Co. v. School District, 282 U. S. 545, 282 U. S. 553.
Cf. Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349, 215 U. S. 356.
5 U. S. 1 Cranch 103, 5 U. S. 110.
93 U. S. 93 U.S. 674; see discussion of this case in Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 147 U. S. 655-656.
104 U. S. 104 U.S. 625, 104 U. S. 629.
276 U. S. 276 U.S. 238, 276 U. S. 240.
309 U. S. 309 U.S. 4, 309 U. S. 7-8.
Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115; Missouri ex rel. Wabash Ry. v. Public Service Comm'n, 273 U. S. 126, 273 U. S. 130; Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U. S. 23, 309 U. S. 26.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503; Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 264 U. S. 291; Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600, 294 U. S. 607.
Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 174 U. S. 478; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 69 U. S. 174.
Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca, 248 U. S. 9, 248 U. S. 21.
United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217, 291 U. S. 222.
We have applied the rule enunciated in the case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, that state law, as determined by the state's highest court, is to be followed as a rule of decision in the federal courts, to determinations by state intermediate appellate courts. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., ante, p. 311 U. S. 223; Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, ante, p. 311 U. S. 169; Six Companies of California v. Joint Highway District, ante, p. 311 U. S. 180; Stoner v. New York Life Insurance Co., ante, p. 311 U. S. 464.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1465
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 725
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.