Document: 433 U.S. 25 97 S.Ct. 2490 53 L.Ed.2d 557 George Henson MIREE et al., Petitioners,v.DeKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, al. Judith Anita PHILLIPS, etc., Petitioner, v. DeKALB FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, William Michael FIELDS, Nos. 76-607, 76-659, 76-700 and 76-722. Argued April 27, 1977. Decided June 21, Syllabus 1. In petitioners' consolidated diversity actions against respondent county arising out of an aircraft crash at the county's airport, state rather than federal law held to apply resolution claim that, as, respectively, survivors deceased passengers, assignee owner, a burn victim, they are third-party beneficiaries grant contracts between Federal Aviation Administration whereby agreed restrict use land adjacent or near airport activities compatible with normal operations, including landings takeoffs; that breached these by operating garbage dump airport; cause was ingestion birds swarming from into aircraft's jet engines shortly after takeoff. The rationale Clearfield Trust Co. United States, 318 363, 63 573, 87 L.Ed. 838, common may govern in cases where uniform national rule is necessary further Government's interest, inapplicable, since only rights private litigants issue no substantial duties States hinge on outcome litigation. Pp. 28-33. 2. Petitioners' claim, argued this Court, Airport Airway Development Act 1970 provides implied civil right action recover for death injury due violation Act, will not be considered it neither pleaded, argued, nor briefed courts below. 33-34. 538 F.2d 643, vacated remanded. J. Arthur Mozley, Atlanta, Ga., Alan W. Heldman, Birmingham, Ala., petitioners. F. Clay Bush, respondents. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 These arise 1973 Lear Jet takeoff DeKalb-Peachtree Airport. Court Appeals Fifth Circuit, en banc, affirmed dismissal complaint DeKalb County (hereafter respondent), holding principles were applicable breach-of-contract claim. We granted certiorari consider whether should have been applied claim; we conclude latter govern. 2 * Petitioners are, victim. They brought separate lawsuits, later consolidated, District Northern Georgia.1 basis jurisdiction citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, complaints asserted liable three independent theories: negligence, nuisance, breach contract. respondent's motion dismiss each claims. below unanimously negligence nuisance theories without merit; propriety contract claims remains cases. 3 (1) seek impose liability as (FAA). Their allege entered six agreements FAA. E. g., App. 15.2 Under terms 4 "take immediate vicinity purposes operations landing aircraft." Id., 19. 5 assert FAA owning maintaining aircraft. 6 Applying Georgia law, found under barred governmental immunity, dismissed Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6). A divided panel decided petitioners could sue immunity would bar suit. Miree 526 679 (C.A.5 1976). dissenting judge court law; he concluded case did standing contracts. Sitting reversed adopted dissent point its opinion. 643 Judge Morgan, who had written opinion, five dissenters there identifiable interest case, thus applicability. II 7 Since alleged unquestionably governed law. Erie Railroad Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188 (1938), but fact party question, pursuant statute. See 1970, 84 Stat. 219, amended, 49 1701 seq. (1970 ed. Supp. V). banc majority adopted, reference, view given factors, application required: 8 "Although here based upon diversity, interpreting one which party, authority conferred necessity uniformity decision demands control contract's interpretation. Seckinger, 397 203, 90 880, 224; Smith Cir. 1974, 497 500; First National Bank Small Business Administration, 429 280." F.2d, 686 (footnote omitted). 9 (2, 3) do agree conclusion Appeals. litigation before us raises question regarding responsibilities relevant inquiry narrow one: respondent. While even cases3 interests Government, 838 (1943), resolve presented promote approaching magnitude those : 10 "The issuance commercial paper vast scale transactions payment commonly occur several states. conflict laws rules forum, subject exceptional uncertainty. It lead great results making identical vagaries desirability plain." 367, S.Ct., 575. 11 But, direct effect Treasury.4 Solicitor General, waiving his respond advised us: 12 "In course proceedings below, determined directly affected issue(s) therefore participate briefing argument appeals. considerations, does intend petitions unless requested so 13 connection grants such undoubtedly considerable magnitude. However, see reason concluding burdened subjected uncertainty variant state-law interpretations whom might sued here, find inapplicable. 14 think our fit within follows Court's America & Savings Assn. Parnell, 352 29, 77 119, 93 (1956), declined situation analogous one. Parnell parties involving bonds. funds obtained cashing bonds, stolen bank. There two issues: bonds "overdue" taken good faith. Appeals, over dissent, both issues; respect good-faith issue. After stressing "subject uncertainty," U.S., 33, 121, rejected rationale: 15 "Securities issued Government generate Government. dealt Metropolitan 323 454, 65 354, 89 383. But also radiate parties. present purely touch States." 121. 16 recognized, faith preclude questions found: 17 "Federal governs interpretation nature obligations created themselves. 'overdueness' matter which, holding, need elucidate." 34, 122. 18 parallel obvious. require among outcome. On other hand, nothing say forecloses applicability 19 (4) Nor has regulating travel promoting air safety sufficient, us, call play Trust. Wallis Pan American Petroleum Corporation, 384 63, 68, 86 1301, 1304, 369 (1966), discussed sufficient bring forth law: 20 deciding fashioned, normally guiding principle significant some policy premises must first specifically shown. means enough assume, Congress Constitution readily enact complete code governing mineral leases Whether latent power exercised displace primarily Congress." (Emphasis added.) 21 may, beneficiaries, municipality involves insofar lawsuits thought advance aviation inducing compliance provisions. assuming correctness notion, adhere language Wallis, cited above, stating Congress. chosen case.5 Actually interpreted frustrate pro tanto, lawsuit lie least countenance action. Even different result reached all cases: 22 "Apart highly abstract (the federal) showing adequate achieve it." 71, 1305. 23 any "is far too speculative, remote possibility justify essentially local concern." 33-34, 24 Although raised dismiss, shall undertake decide correct footnote, stated suing beneficiaries. course, otherwise. doubt deem itself bound dicta footnote simply reference vacate judgment remand consideration III (5) Act. V).6 Petitioners, however, citizenship their lawsuits; rely federal-question jurisdiction. 1331, more consistent theory sought recovery solely grounds indication statute violation. obviously afterthought merit, either it. Cf. Lawn 355 339, 362-363, n. 16, 78 311, 324, 321 (1958). 26 vacated, remanded 27 ordered. Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 29 misinterpreted rigidly limiting "federal law" situations I restrictive approach. 30 cannot read (1956) circumstances, precluding matters citizens. Certainly, action, substantive ousted " 'an amorphous doctrine sovereignty' divorced specific constitutional statutory provision premised 'that every authorized activity represents exercise power.' Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 580, 592 10, 2389, 2397, 37 187 (1973), quoting Burnison, 339 87, 91, 92, 70 503, 505, 506, 94 675 (1950). am prepared foreclose, point, dependent congressional regulatory "the Acts 'require' otherwise own force." supra, 592-593, 2397. 31 situation, choice because legislation particular transaction Once inappropriate govern, inevitable incompleteness interstitial lawmaking basic responsibility courts." 593, short, although called invoke infrequently, 'federal judicial competence declare area comprising issues substantially related established program government operation.' Ibid., Mishkin, Variousness Law": Competence Discretion Choice State Rules Decision, 105 U.Pa.L.Rev. 797, 800 (1957). 32 my close, conclude, balance, plaintiffs intimately purpose V), case. H.R.Rep. No. 91-601 (1969), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 3047. Accordingly, R. applies, join remanding determination Tort Claims §§ 1346(b), 2671 arises granting County's entry final 54(b). made similar motion, reviewing sufficiency context we, treat well-pleaded allegations true. Sola Electric Jefferson 317 173, 172, 165 (1942); Association (1956); (1966). tort 1, Indeed, looks determining liability. 1346(b). considered, passed, bill provide disasters. Hearings S. 961 Subcommittee Improvements Judicial Machinery Senate Committee Judiciary, pt. 2, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). used agreements, 1718(3) require, condition precedent approval development project, assurances approaches safely maintained restricted uses landing.

Category: 7