Document: 127 S. Ct. 881 (2007) Pat OSBORN, Petitioner, v. Barry HALEY et al. No. 05-593. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 30, 2006. Decided January 22, 2007. *887 Eric Grant, Sacramento, CA, for petitioner. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, D.C., respondents. Andrea M. Miller, Nageley, Meredith & Inc., Counsel Record, Attorney at Law, Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Peter Keisler, Assistant Edwin Kneedler, Deputy to the Barbara L. Herwig, Mark W. Pennak, Attorneys Department Justice, C. Thomas J. Duncan Pitchford, Richard Roberts, Whitlow, Houston Straub, PLLC, Paducah, KY, Respondents. Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act 1988, commonly known as Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out acts they undertake in course their official duties. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). When a employee is sued wrongful or negligent conduct, empowers General certify that "was acting within *888 scope his office employment time incident which claim arose." 2679(d)(1), (2). Upon General's certification, dismissed action, States substituted defendant place employee. litigation thereafter governed by Claims (FTCA), 60 Stat. 842. If action commenced state court, case be removed district certification remains "conclusiv[e] ... purposes removal." 2679(d)(2). In Gutierrez de Martinez Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 420, 115 2227, 132 Ed. 2d 375 (1995), we held scope-of-employment subject judicial review. Today, address three further questions regarding Act's operation: (1) Is proper when officer denies occurrence tortious conduct alleged plaintiff; (2) does 2679(d)(2), rendering removal," bar remand even if court determines should not employee; (3) 1447(d)'s on appellate review orders override 2679(d)(2)'s direction that, removal, conclusive. first two were advanced petition certiorari; our order granting review, asked parties impact 1447(d) this case. Osborn, plaintiff-petitioner civil now before Court, Haley Kentucky court. She tortiously interfered with her private contractor conspired cause discharge. Osborn Haley's efforts bring about discharge outside employment. Attorney, serving delegate, countered Osborn's allegations certifying employment... [Osborn's] complaint." App. Brief Opposition 23 (hereinafter Luber App.). Based was District Western Kentucky, 2679(d)(2) instructs. forum, denied attributed Haley, asserting wrongdoing she never occurred. Accepting true, entered an rejected Government's motion substitute remanded On appeal, Sixth Circuit vacated Court's order, instructed retain jurisdiction over We affirm Appeals' judgment. merits, agree denying substitution lieu misconstrued Act. Substitution improper simply because rests understanding facts differs plaintiff's allegations. States, hold, must remain unless until employee, fact, plaintiff, engaged beyond jurisdictional issues, hold conclusive *889 i.e., once removal are effected, exclusive competence adjudicate resides may suit also displace shields pursuant certification. I Petitioner worked Land Between Lakes Association (LBLA), company contracted Forest Service provide staff National Recreation Area Kentucky.[1] While employed LBLA, applied trainee position Service. Respondent officer, responsible Service's hiring process. At meeting LBLA employees, announced he had hired someone else job sought. why did inform meeting, made joke expense. After supervisor told apologize Haley; refused. A few weeks later, filed complaint Labor, asking investigate whether Service, its decision, given appropriate consideration veterans' preference points entitled. Department's investigator, Robert Kuenzli, after interviewing concluded procedure been handled correctly. Kuenzli so informed who then him close complaint. same day LBLA's executive director, respondent Gaye Luber, summoned demanded "not being good partner." Complaint ¶ 18, 4. again Two days fired. against relationship Specifically, charged maliciously induced fire her, retaliation Labor requesting inquiry. 29, 7. response local invoking certified behalf 23. As customary, stated no reasons determination.[2] Congress instructed: "Upon *890 arose, any proceeding upon such State shall without bond trial division embracing pending. Such deemed brought under provisions title all references thereto, party defendant. This conclusively establish (emphasis added). Citing provision, well statute, 1442,[3] Kentucky. notified defendant, dismiss ground exhausted administrative remedies, required FTCA. opposed dismiss. argued employment, hence afforded immunity. support opposition, submitted memorandum between cautioned involvement decisions. Apparently impression preliminary stage, dispute factual allegations, declined evidentiary hearing. Under law, observed, acted view closeness request investigation, Kuenzli's call Luber's demand apology justified inference violation LBLA-Forest understanding. So reasoning, overruled substitution. ruling, longer Furthermore, diverse citizenship law issue. therefore it lacked subject-matter case.[4] Invoking 1447(c),[5] *891 moved reconsideration, urging contrary impression, Government contest Recalling answer complaint, sworn declarations Luber. communication investigation firing. declaration could have bearing termination, unaware relevant time. Absent evidence, maintained, these sufficed continuance Haley. alternative, sought discovery.[6] reconsideration motion. declarations, said, clarified controversy centered there influencing decision Osborn. would shielded suggested, admitted Haley-Luber but defended content improper, concluded, admit, instead denied, event central proof claim. acknowledged disagreement among Circuits availability "den[ies] basic charged." Wood 995 F.2d 1122, 1124 (C.A.1 1993) (en banc). Compare ibid. McHugh University Vermont, 966 67, 74-75 (C.A.2 1992) (prohibiting incident-denying certifications), Heuton Anderson, 75 F.3d 357, 360 (C.A.8 1996); Kimbro Velten, 30 1501, 1508 (C.A.D.C.1994); Melo Hafer, 13 736, 746-747 (C.A.3 1994) (allowing certifications). Choosing follow First Circuit's Wood, adhered prior ruling invalid. 422 359, 365 (2005). Appeals, accord Heuton, Kimbro, Melo, plaintiff centrally relies. F.3d, 364. Rather, held, where "the based different than reflected including denial harm-causing incident, resolve dispute." *892 Ibid. (quoting 747). remanding Section Appeals stressed, instructs "certification read instruction proscribe shuttling cases back courts and, instead, require adjudication correspondingly, denied. 365. issue too, noted Circuits. Borneman 213 819, 826 (C.A.4 2000); Garcia 88 318, 325-327 (C.A.5 Aliota Graham, 984 1350, 1356 (holding lacks authority 2679(d)(2)), Haddon 68 1420, 1427 (C.A.D.C.1995); Nasuti Scannell, 906 802, 814, n. 17 1990) rejects certification). granted certiorari. 547 ___, 126 2017, 164 778 (2006). II consider disposition turn rejecting rejection effectively protection measure designed immunize covered liability, suit. 2(a)(5), 102 4563; U.S., 425-426, 2227; H.R.Rep. 100-700, p. 4 (1988), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 5945. collateral doctrine Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 1528 (1949), qualifies reviewable final compass 1291.[7] Meeting criteria Cohen, decided contested issue, important separate merits unreviewable later litigation. 546, 1221. Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 525-527, 105 2806, 86 411 (1985) defendant's qualified plea immediately appealable "is lost erroneously permitted go trial" immune official). cogently explained Fifth Carlson, 896 128, 133 (1990), retaining "effectively denie[s][him] [he] entitled *893 certifies [his] properly can proceed only By [rejecting Genera's certification], subject[s] [the employee] burden defending . ., spares him]." Tellingly, Courts unanimous holding amenable immediate Cohen. Woodruff Covington, 389 1117, (C.A.10 2004); Mathis Henderson, 243 446, 448 2001); Borneman, (C.A.4); Lyons Brown, 158 605, 607 1998); Taboas Mlynczak, 149 576, 579 (C.A.7 Coleman 91 820, 823 (C.A.6 Flohr Mackovjak, 84 386, 390 (C.A.11 1503 (C.A.D.C.); Aliota, F.2d, 1354 (C.A.3); Pelletier Home Bank, 968 865, 873 (C.A.9 1992); McHugh, (C.A.2); (C.A.5). confirm ruled correctly matter. B certiorari address, addition issues presented petition, question: Did notwithstanding "[a]n appeal otherwise"? answering question, second question certiorariwhether rule actions applies Our by, tracks, Third reasoning 1354-1357. begin provision address: 1447(d). That states part: "An otherwise. ." Thermtron Products, Inc. Hermansdorfer, 423 336, 96 584, 46 542 (1976), preceding subsection, 1447(c), confined scope. 1447(d), explained, "only issued 1447(c) [mandatory] grounds specified thereinthat improvident jurisdiction review." Id., 346, 584.[8]Thermtron sole reason gave court's crowded docket. reviewable, observing sensibly confer "carte blanche revise statutes governing 351, 584. Quackenbush Allstate Ins. Co., 517 706, 116 1712, 135 1 (1996) *894 abstention-based appealable). But see Gravitt Southwestern Bell Telephone 430 723, 97 1439, 52 (1977) (per curiam) purporting rest 1447(c)). urges us apply 1447(c). To determine controls, start examination design, particularly prescriptions earlier noted, supra, 887-888, grants named question. [relevant] time," 2679(d)(1). launched makes "shall removed" Of prime importance concludes command: "Th[e] (Emphasis added.) directive markedly Congress' "refuse[s] employment." 2679(d)(3). event, instituted make remove obliged do so. federal, defendant." has occurred, court." distinction those not, leads conclude return unwarranted. 2679(d)(3) directs commenced. contrast, certificate "conclusively establish[es] preclude resubstituting determines, postremoval, incorrect. For establishing forum case, however, renders dispositive.[9] *895 Were open erroneous, weightless. employment" either removal. Instead, supply tentative basis rather one. unanimously agreed spoke unambiguously matter: adopted removal" language "foreclose needless one another." 433, 10, id., 440, 2227 (SOUTER, J., dissenting) ("[T]here nothing equivocal [§ 2679(d)(2)'s] system."). With clear view, reviewable. together There stronger cause, conclude, (d) enacted Both antishuttling provisions. Each aims prevent "prolonged removed." Rice, 327 742, 751, 66 835, 90 982 (1946). operative triggering forum. point, exclusively competent categorically precludes command differentiates typical want jurisdiction. Ordinarily, moves lack jurisdiction, undertakes threshold inquiry; typically complete diversity exists raises cases, determination called for; forecloses declaring "conclusive" forum's barred passing originated determination. leaves send scarcely means whenever misconstrues order. exception would, course, collide *896 head precedent. See, e.g., Things Remembered, Petrarca, 516 124, 127-128, 494, 461 (1995). Only extraordinary ordered intercourt shuttle travel just wayfrom courtdoes today's sway. short, commands, prevail. controls. Tailor-made forum-selecting "conclusive," ken revise. Thermtron, C considered, definitively resolve, Article III permits "[t]reating substitution." 434, 2227. It "because [defendant-employee] citizenship, will left jurisdiction." 434-435, Lamagno specter problem." 435, us, arise if, full consideration, fact little adjudicate, least liability. Because significant (whether immunity) raised outset, "aris[e] under" term used III. Verlinden B.V. Central Bank Nigeria, 480, 493, 103 1962, 76 81 (1983). Even state-law remained resolution discretion, consistent III, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Cohill, 484 343, 350-351, 108 614, 98 720 (1988) (when character eliminated while sub judice, discretion remand, dismiss); cf. Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 725, 1130, 16 218 (1966) (pendent exercised "common nucleus fact" "ordinarily expected [be tried] proceeding"). 1367 ("Supplemental jurisdiction"). "[C]onsiderations economy, convenience fairness litigants," 726, reasonable judgment, invested resources pivotal contest. Thus, precedent guides run afoul resolved, reach principal petitioner Osborn: validly *897 note formally order; closely tracks (authorizing "that arose"). first, word" correlatively, 432, determination, here. recounted, 890, initially accepted true believed them. Applying determined "Haley's occurred Pet. Cert. 24a. far admitting disputed very alleged. motion, affidavits ascribed them contended bounds happened. dispute, whether, alleged, prevailed asserted, communicated grant dispute. invalid precisely conduct. injury-causing episode. 1123 (C.A.1); (C.A.2). Circuit, several other allegation official's block contends occur. (C.A.8); (C.A.3). misconduct asserts, episode immunity, reiterate, "acting formulation, persuaded, encompasses duty "incident" 1134 (joint Coffin, Selya, Boudin, JJ., ("[S]urely statute force postal service driver says hit *898 car fault."); 747. And complaint's charge contested, warrants investigation. otherwise, stripped what finds, alleges.[10] sum, purpose shield liability suit, altogether afford "negligent matter course." 1135 dissenting). scant sense leaving intentional tort[11] fend himself asserts "engaged behavior occurring wholly ("[I]t illogical assume intended protect guilty desert innocent ones.").[12] Willingham Morgan, 395 402, 89 1813, 396 (1969), construed 1442, supports reading Act.[13] 1442(a)(1) allows "sued individual capacity act color office." Willingham, inmate prison officials alleging assaulted, beaten, tortured him. 403, 1813. defendants 1442(a)(1), upheld defense Tenth reversed, *899 permit "exclude[s] possibility duty." Morgan 139, 141 (1967). narrow construction 1442 "broad enough cover officers raise colorable enforce law." 406-407, office. He "had frolic own relevancy duties States." 407, 1813 (internal quotation marks omitted). "should opportunity present version state, 409, ability unlike officer's controlled "relationship plaintiff] derived solely duties." Similarly here, interacted through officer.[14] 1442(a), accept truth "on own," omitted), "out malice," 140 "maliciously induced" dismissal "in filing inquiry." like *900 "present Tugging recognize, "who decides" concern. respected jury trial. 1126, 1134-1138 Should find induce lose access peers.[15] "This small objection," goes heart validity certificate," likely credibility "may suited resolution." 1136-1137.[16] supplanted cases. 2679(d)(1)-(3). "deemed be. States," ibid., originally Seventh Amendment, preserves right suits common proceedings sovereign. Lehman Nakshian, 453 156, 101 2698, 548 (1981). 2402 (actions ordinarily tried jury"). reviews 1509, 4.[17] core bears trier *901 essential relieve cost effort lawsuit, burdens shoulders. 892-893. Immunity-related times instructed, earliest opportunity. Hunter Bryant, 502 224, 228, 112 534, 589 (1991) ("Immunity long trial."); Anderson Creighton, 483 635, 646, 6, 107 3034, 523 (1987) ("[I]mmunity resolved possible stage litigation.").[18] * stated, judgment Affirmed. SOUTER, concurring part dissenting part. join except Parts II-B II-C. Title provides, otherwise." sanctioning relies Congress, prohibited one, give effect recently "`review unavailable how plain legal error ordering remand.'" Kircher Putnam Funds Trust, 2145, 2154, 165 92 (2006) Briscoe Bell, 432 404, 414, 13, 2428, 53 439 (1977)). allowing trump reaffirm erroneous jurisdiction.[1] otherwise limit (or employee's) *902 might ordered. therefore, removed," terms decision. Allowing resubstitution promise Act: permitting disaggregation substantive preceded (in manner exemplified Waco Fidelity Guaranty 293 140, 55 79 244 (1934)), gives employee-defendant benefit substituting costly employee's service.[2] circumstances adopted, responding series decisions saw having "seriously eroded previously available employees," 4563, following 2671, point placed giving seek protection. Incidentally, my correct legitimacy making unlikely mistakenly premised carried out. resisted edification, Kircher, S.Ct., 2154. pair half-loaves. policy avoiding remands tempered appeals behind insulating premise. Neither all, each gets something. BREYER, analysis opinion. dissent Part continue believe accepting, conditionally, existence some kind "incident." took fallen 1122 Here, claim, (i.e., employer respect employment), But, procedural reasons, alternative *903 us. Ante, 891, 6. Hence quite all. Consider, example, aggravated sexual assault, theft personal property, auto accident Coney Island say Yellowstone Park forest ranger, own. majority's approach finds kind. not. thing, suggests circumstances. italicized words, naturally, characterization (e.g., employment) attaches. way purely certifications, majority does, squared text reviewing doing (and activities "at incident"a showing prove difficult this, committed unknown period days, weeks, longer. another, suggest necessarily falling popular name suggests, focused Erwin, 292, 580, 619 considered obtain suits, show "within employment," "discretionary nature." 295, 580 answered "yes." simple negligence, discretionary. basically seeks overturn holding. "[w]hen wrote legislators firmly mind [namely] Erwin." 425, House Judiciary Committee "functional status decision." pp. 5945, 5947. "status," many thought, nondiscretionary, discretionary, fell scope" "office 2679(b)(1); word, maintain pre-Westfall minus Westfall's function" limitation. encompass extension all-or-nothing serious assaults "frolics" possibly Further, try latter type creates anomalies. *904 recognizes, interpretation matters critical Indeed, whom defend, ask judge certificate. issuance depend assault times. And, deciding (as issue), judge, jury, decide main (The declines 900, 17. virtually identical cannot seriously affords narrower seeking General.) highly unusual special, speedy factfinding defense, "entitlement stand certain circumstances," 525, added), special immunity-related procedures focus, factfinding, given. Where parties' amounts namely particular set fall immunity's scope, quick necessary, interlocutory appeal. 526, 530, 2806. Nixon Fitzgerald, 457 731, 742-743, 2690, 73 349 (1982); Helstoski Meanor, 442 500, 507-508, 99 2445, 61 (1979). facts, entitle treatment. take Like move summary Mitchell, 2806; 646-647, (1987). provides sufficient evidence survive win Thus treatment taken assertions survived judgment) disputes facts. Johnson Jones, 304, 319-320, 2151, 238 (1995) (defendant raising insofar pretrial record sets forth `genuine' trial"). works major change fact/law relationship. reading, events happen. jury. proves more anomalous *905 claiming violates both (a) (b) rights law. Suppose "mistaken identity." argues working peacefully desk. question; favor claim), estoppel end well. Yet explicitly exempts "violation statute" Constitution. 2679(b)(2). much think offers support. addressed (via 1442(a)(1)). Once there, pursue traditional defenses, judgment; meant said court," Moreover, Mesa California, 489 121, 109 959, (1989), "[f]ederal 1442(a) predicated averment defense." "ha[d] defense" charges them, 1442(a)(1). 133, 959. reads broadly Mesa, unquestionably (at defenses understood today). doing, opens wide door but, consequentially, judge's right. totally eliminate difficulties mentioned. literally minimize largely mitigating problem clever pleading rightly concerned, ante, 898. "Attorney General" "employee prevents adding able falls regardless. touching (outside free touching, accidental (within employment). accuses driving Island, similar (Nor assault.) incidents happen, *906 involving happened available. resembles, respects Wood. conflicts "incident-describing incident-characterizing facts," leave (if came that) 1129. offer compromise extreme approach. including, determining fulfill function 2679(d)(3)) plausible explanation approach, absent undefined constraint imposed future 899, 14, (and, requests, court) judges "injury loss injury death" recovery "aris[en] result[ed] omission employment"i.e., chance any) caused kinds expressly protects guilty, 898, class plausibly cover. interpreted vacate assertion (including court), basis. SCALIA, THOMAS joins, dissenting. Few clearly 1447(d): ."[1] venerable dating 1887, (1976). is, moreover, hortatory; jurisdictional. beginning 1976, repeatedly mandate expanded Today's eviscerates *907 Congress's Court-limiting command. narrowing Rehnquist joined Chief Burger Stewart (only eight Justices sat case). Products mandatory 1447(c) namely, "`the improvidently jurisdiction.'"[2] 342, result followed, subsections (c) pari materia" "must together." 345, unlimited phrase case" magically became "an section"changing predecessors orders. 354-356, 584 (Rehnquist, Since, docket, writ mandamus compelling 710-712, (reviewing abstention Burford Sun Oil 319 315, 63 1098, 87 1424 (1943)).[3] next phase erosion last Term, There, [it] 2148. matter, embarked searching inquiry into real 2154-2158. concurrence, warned "[r]eview sort threatens defeat 1447(d)," "`to delay protracted issues.'" ___-___, 2148 584). "Such created easily characterized Whether wrongeven badly mistaken misunderstood ordersit purported bars ___- Kircher. Whereas claimed applying precedents, see, 2154-2155 (citing 413-414, (1977)), pretense. Having recognized, must, *908 invoked 896, nevertheless reaches amazing conclusion "contro[l]" 895-896. How be? eliminating order? riddle lies section added); absolutely reviewability most case; erroneous. precedents abundantly appellate-review Just Term "a unappealable." 2155. ("If purports `improvidently jurisdiction,' challenge mandamus, otherwise") (1975 ed.) added)); Briscoe, 2428 (where enumerated "review remand"). repudiates principle. utterly novel proposition, aside remaining Determination order's lawfulness reviewand forbids.[4] knows wishes 12 1441a(l)(3)(C) ("The Corporation court"); 1819(b)(2)(C) (same); 25 487(d) ("[T]he case"). itself bar. 1, supra. "Absent statutory contrary, aware universality th[e] practice new 494 recognized "[t]here `clear command' silence tells look Act." 8, 8. looking around clear. Respondents *909 logically distinct citing (1934). 901-902 part) (adopting argument). continuing vitality dubious light recent 2156, 13. need since patently inapposite. whose requisite diversity, finding party's joinder thus found though 143, crucial one: Waco, reversal subverted remand. regardless rightfully wrongfully dismissed. Nowhere hint reexamine occur, what: "If [dismissal] stands, cross-action affect least, petitioner's remit entire controversy, [diverse party] still party, proceedings." 143-144, 6 truly "separate orders," 142, 6; revieweven reversethe affecting resembles "covered" class-action defined Securities Litigation Uniform Standards 1998 (SLUSA), 3227, confines SLUSA. "covered," SLUSA precluded going forward federal. 15 77p(b). neither nor inapplicability appeal: "The here disaggregated could, [we SLUSA], [would be] situation case: disagree recognizing requires) 888, styled once, FTCA suits. 1346(b)(1). *910 matterhere, certification; applicabilityis inextricably intertwined Since so, all-too-rare reduce high litigation, provided completely effectuated tradeoff sorts: undoubtedly error, thought justice better served minority subjecting every endless rounds disputes. "[B]y form remand," "Congress. established interrupting prolonged uncompromising pursuit technical perfection costs, repealed tradeoff. One restore it, hard imagine accomplishing desired already does. entirety, plainly NOTES [1] draw account supplemented [2] read: "I, Monica Wheatley, Acting virtue vested me Appendix C.F.R. 15.3 hereby Office reviewed information [3] "[a] criminal prosecution against" "any office" removed... wherein pending." (a)(1), (b). [4] propriety 1442. infra, ___20, 11. [5] provides: "A defect notice 1446(a). appears remanded. An payment costs actual expenses, attorney fees, incurred copy mailed clerk thereupon case." [6] refused entertain argument conversation declared, oath, communicate unwilling allow discovery contact Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(e)(2) (subject 11 obligations, plead "alternately hypothetically"). express refusal pleading. [7] 1291 "[t]he courts." [8] decided, appeared "removed (1970 ed.). "it [9] 912 628, 641 choose government unchallengeable employees." endeavor secure mean render ibid.; 430-434, [10] resembling banc), BREYER takes contests episode-in-suit, "assume incident" certify. Post, 903. "purely certifications," places category. dissenters' appraisal BREYER's incident-recharacterizing certifications: "to engage difficult, time-wasting controversies pertaining jury." 1136, 7 Accord 1507 (C.A.D.C.1994) impossible actually occurred."). [11] 1505 (observing "tend[s] torts"). [12] when, "nothing available." 905-906. thinks be." 906. disagree. "Congress' policy," agree, "both opposite direction." 1136 [13] 2679. urge reversing [14] context qualify nexus asserted authority." Jefferson County Acker, 527 423, 431, 119 2069, 144 408 (1999) (citations internal today qualification similarly limited, connecting note, commits fanciful situations hypothesizes, post, 902-903, unrelated posits ranger accused misdeeds Island. immunitymore accurately, uphold certification ranger's "presen[ce] own." 902-903. imagining certificate, approve imaginary If, frolicking stayed desk Park, correct: ever shows up limited requirement limits [15] overlap evident uncommon. occur alleges accident, generally simultaneously drove negligently carefully. tort, contact, duties, consensual resolution. [16] 1137 "[i]n ordinary runs another car, employee"). [17] refuses "petition However, uncertified accorded only. place, arguable remove, Amendment figure inapplicable Minneapolis St. Louis R. Co. Bombolis, 241 211, 217, 36 595, 961 (1916). [18] "reading [ordinary] relationship." 904-905. Nothing touches observe species jurisprudence, right, extent. recognize greater role traditionally contexts. inevitable. is: late undermining purpose: shift defendant-employee was, time, authorized ought endure itself, clause applicable here: "except 1443 amended, specifying limitation 905, perfectly declining create problem. Unlike dicta. 895-896 (noting if" yet anyway).

Category: 8