Document: 499 U.S. 225 111 S.Ct. 1217 113 L.Ed.2d 190 SALVE REGINA COLLEGE, Petitionerv.Sharon L. RUSSELL. No. 89-1629. Argued Nov. 27, 1990. Decided March 20, 1991. Syllabus Respondent Russell filed a diversity action in the District Court, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner college, located Rhode Island, had breached an implied agreement to educate her when it asked withdraw from its nursing program for failing meet certain weight loss commitments. The court denied petitioner's motion directed verdict, concluding Island Supreme Court would apply commercial doctrine of substantial performance academic setting, such could prevail even though she not fully complied with contract's terms. jury returned verdict Russell, which Appeals affirmed. Applying appellate deference customarily accords interpretations state law made by federal judges State, found Court's state-law determination did constitute reversible error. Held: Courts appeals must review de novo district courts' determinations. Pp. 231-240. (a) general rule independent legal issues best serves dual goals doctrinal coherence and economy judicial administration. are structurally suited collaborative juridical process promotes decisional accuracy. They able devote their primary attention issues. have advantage refined briefs bring bear on more information comprehensive analysis than was provided judge. And they employ multijudge panels permit reflective dialogue collective judgment. P. 231-233. (b) Departure is warranted exercise jurisdiction. Appellate court's inconsistent aims Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 discourage forum shopping avoid inequitable administration laws, since invites divergent development among trial courts within single State creates system enforcement state-created rights, substantive applied dispute may depend choice forum. Such also contrary this cases decided after Erie. See, e.g., New York Life Ins. Jackson, 261, 871, 1329. 233-235. (c) Russell's argument professing adherence actually reviewing determinations rejected. profess are, fact, deferring. When compelled, no form acceptable. better arbiters unsettled because exposure sit based overbroad generalizations foreclosed decision 235-239. 890 F.2d 484 (CA1 1989), reversed remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion MARSHALL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, WHITE STEVENS, joined, post, p. ----. Steven E. Snow, Providence, R.I., petitioner. Edward T. Hogan, East respondent. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 concept common law, lurking (to use Holmes' phrase) as "brooding omnipresence sky," questioned some time before being firmly rejected (1938). See Southern Pacific Jensen, 244 205, 222, 37 524, 531, 61 1086 (1917) (Holmes, dissenting); Black & White Taxicab Transfer Brown Yellow Co., 276 518, 533, 48 404, 409, 72 681 (1928) (dissenting opinion). mandates sitting absent statutory or constitutional directive contrary. U.S., at 78, S.Ct., 822. 28 U.S.C. § 1652 ("The laws several states, except where Constitution treaties United States Acts Congress otherwise require provide, shall be regarded rules civil actions States, apply"). In decisions Erie, clear determined same manner resolves evolving issue law: "with aid light [is] afforded materials hand, accordance applicable principles determining law." Meredith Winter Haven, 320 228, 238, 64 7, 13, 88 9 (1943). Ruhlin 202, 208-209, 860, 862, 1290 (1938) ("Application 'State law' present case . does disputants duties difficult strange"). 2 case, we decide specifically whether under standard less probing law. 3 * presented arises out contract between college one students. Petitioner Salve Regina College institution higher education Newport, R.I. Sharon admitted began studies freshman 1982. following year, respondent sought admission college's department order pursue bachelor science degree nursing. She accepted fall 1983. 4 Respondent, who 5'6" tall, weighed excess 300 pounds program. Immediately 1983 school year began, respondent's became topic commentary concern officials Respondent's first marked series confrontations negotiations concerning obesity effect upon ability complete clinical requirements safely satisfactorily. During junior signed document designated "contract" conditioned further participation weekly attendance weight-loss seminar realized average two per week. failed these commitments, so. transferred another but repeat satisfy transferee institution's 2-year residency requirement. As consequence, took five years rather four. underwent surgery obesity. 1987, successfully completed education, now registered nurse. 5 Soon leaving College, Island. asserted, others, claims (1) intentional infliction emotional distress, (2) invasion privacy, (3) nonperformance respondent.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction citizenship. 1332. parties agree applies all aspects action. supra. 6 At close plaintiff-respondent's case-in-chief, individual defendants three remaining claims, distress privacy. App. 82. court, however, breach-of-contract claim, reasoning "a legitimate factual issue" remained "there plaintiff overall contractual relationship Regina." Id., 88. 7 evidence, renewed verdict. It argued strict context. Therefore, according petitioner, fulfilled terms contract, entitled judgment matter 8 motion. 92. Acknowledging point, limited application substantial-performance construction contracts, nonetheless concluded, facts case. 90-91. Federal Judge conclusion, part, his observation "I judge 18 1/2 years, I feel what will do won't do." 91. Accordingly, submitted claim jury. instructed jury: "The provides exact accompanied good faith required type. necessary completely performed every item specified parties. sufficient if there has been performance, necessarily full so long compliance minor relatively unimportant deviation omission." 97. 10 respondent, damages were $30,513.40. 113. Judgment entered. 115. Both appealed. 11 First Circuit (1989). upheld dismissing 487-488. then turned erred submitting Rejecting that, college-student context, stated: 12 "In impression, held question. view customary accorded state, Dennis Hospital Trust Nat'l Bank, 744 893, 896 (1st Cir.1984); O'Rourke Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 730 842, 847 (2d Cir.1984), hold error." 489. 13 writ certiorari alleged deferring law.2 A majority Appeals, although varying phraseology, embrace similar articulated Norton St. Paul Fire Marine 902 1355, 1357 (CA8 1990) ("In general, accord interpretation sits"), Self Wal-Mart Stores, 885 336, 339 (CA6 1989) ("[W]e should give 'considerable weight' views questions local law"). Two broken ranks recently sister Circuits. concluded district-court subject plenary court. Craig Lake Asbestos Quebec, Ltd., 843 145, 148 (CA3 1988), re McLinn, 739 1395 (CA9 1984) (en banc, divided vote). We granted resolve conflict. 497 1023, 110 3269, 780 (1990). II 14 conclude matter, course, vested authority over final courts. 1291. obligation responsible implies requisite independently lower 15 Independent preside alone fast-paced trials: Of necessity much energy resources hearing witnesses evidence. Similarly, logistical burdens advocacy limit extent counsel supplement judge's research memoranda briefs. Thus, often complicated without benefit "extended reflection [or] extensive information." Coenen, To Defer Not Defer: Study Deference Rulings Law, 73 Minn.L.Rev. 899, 923 16 appeals, other With record having constructed below settled purposes appeal, become focus review, can expected parties' Perhaps most important, panels, see §§ 46(b) (c), Over 30 ago, Frankfurter accurately observed: 17 "Without adequate study cannot reflection; discussion; discussion fruitful interchange minds indispensable thoughtful, unhurried formulation learned impressive opinions." Dick 359 437, 458-459 [79 921, 933, 935] (1959) entails careful consideration analysis, efficient sensitive least naturally consider undertaking review. readily acknowledges importance Tr. Oral Arg. 11, 19-22. Any expertise possessed inform structure content conclusions thereby evident If finds analytical sophistication exhausted inquiry, little need said opinion. admit unreflective reliance inarticulable intuitions. appropriately respectful encourage explicate care basis conclusions. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 52(a) (requiring "state separately 19 Those circumstances reflect accommodation respective institutional advantages unchallenged superiority factfinding ability, Rule commands findings fact "shall set aside unless clearly erroneous, due regard given opportunity credibility witnesses." addition, "especially common" involving supervision litigation reviewed abuse discretion. Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 558, n. 1, 108 2541, 2547, 101 490 (1988). Finally, deferential mixed appears "better positioned" question scrutiny contribute clarity doctrine. Miller Fenton, 474 104, 114, 106 445, 451, 405 (1985); Cooter Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 402, 2447, 2459, (1990) ("[T]he situated marshall pertinent fact-dependent mandated 11"); Pierce, 562, 2548 Government's litigating position 'substantially justified' multifarious novel question, susceptible, least, useful generalization"). 20 Nothing about alters functional components decisionmaking warrants departure Actually, underlying twin doctrine—"discouragement forum-shopping avoidance laws," Hanna Plumer, 380 460, 468, 85 1136, 1142, (1965)—are goal advanced conceded, State. 34-36. Moreover, denying litigant access meaningful defer create Cf. 74-75, 820 ("[The Swift Tyson, Pet. 865 (1842) ] rights enjoyed unwritten 'general vary court"). Neither results, unavoidable absence reconciled 21 Although might say spoken uniformly voice our makes apparent duty provide determination. soon noted instead remanded 1329 (1938), Rosenthal 263, 874, 1330 true Bernhardt Polygraphic America, 350 198, 76 273, 100 199 (1956), noted, settled, emphasized: "Were doubt deserving canvass, course remand pass [state] 277.3 III 22 urging adopt embraced offers arguments. First, suggests Second, presses familiar contention sit. reject each A. 23 primarily contends special undertake According simply "cloth[ed] 'deferential' robes." Brief 15. support contention, refers announced bound deferentially yet constitutere versible Afram Export Corp. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., 772 1358, 1370 (CA7 1985); 1355 1990). relies while articulating deference, acknowledge scrutinize closely Foster National Union Pittsburgh, 1316 F.2d, 1405 opinion) overreacts problem basically terminology"). 24 decline invitation assume craft opinions disingenuously. overturns erroneous way indicates applying cited confirm this. Foster, example, cautioned: "We not, examine ourselves." 1318. us interpret caveat acknowledgment novo. 17-18, 23. expressly acknowledged reverse "unless 'fundamentally deficient ., reasonable basis, reported state-court opinion.' " 1318 (citations omitted). After detail, concluded: "[T]he Arkansas certainly reasonable." 1320. This neither purports be, nor is, conclusion 25 Nor suffice recognize difference separate urged argues subtle differences standards insufficient warrant intrusion into variation forms framework dissent McLinn rests. 1404 ("By giving 'substantial deference,' 'great weight,' courts, suspend own thought processes"). 26 practical frequently correct. many lieu affect outcome appeal. controlling squarely resolved indisputably Bernhardt, 204-205, 277. remains unsettled, unreasonable considered coincide reasoned Where diverge, significance concludes wrong.4 27 mandate alter only those few differently resolution, constitutes 1397 panel indicated past, permits reversal error, affirm; standard, reverse"). These instances, make firm conviction "much mere degree." Bose Consumers 466 485, 501, 104 1949, 1959, 80 502 (1984). B amicus argue inappropriate because, positioned determine appeals. superior capacity derives, said, regularity tries governed experience generally practitioner 7-10; Ford Motor Amicus Curiae 9-11. 29 unpersuaded. initial seems founded fatally generalizations. proposition "intuit" answer holding very essence bases presumed communicable Almost 35 Professor Kurland "Certainly, brooding sky Vermont, California." Kurland, Mr. Frankfurter, Doctrine Diversity Cases, 67 Yale L.J. 187, 217 (1957). 531 dissenting) articulate sovereign quasi-sovereign identified"). equally available divination, sense prior nonexposure judiciary facilitate reason.5 IV cooperative federalism therefore 31 reversed, proceedings consistent 32 ordered. 33 Chief whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 34 believe delve abstractions "deferential" opposed calls, various places, "plenary," "independent," "de other, critical language used quoted this: Lines 484, 489 1989). 36 Appeals' "customary deference," fair refer page Nat. 893 (1984), cites. There find language: "[I]n one, technical concern, 'reluctant interfere judge, state's practices.' (citation 38 always defers Rather, states reluctant substitute "who practices." 181/2 deference. 39 me sensible observation. insights particularly valuable unsettled. cases, task try predict how highest attempting skills, experiences perceptions behavior perfect assessment trends. 40 choose aphorisms help opt "[t]he life logic: experience." O. Holmes, Common Law (1881). harm recall members monopoly experience; surely possess just do. That lead them rely, appropriate situations, practiced taking bench quite natural. 41 For reason, traditionally "weight" perspective 204, 277, (1956) ("Since making Vermont bar, statement is"); Hohri, 482 74, 6, 107 2246, 2253, 96 51 (1987) ("[L]ocal likely Indeed, usually great deference"); Bishop Wood, 426 341, 346, 10, 2074, 2078, 684 (1976) ("[T]his concurred examination guidance justified different conclusion"). 42 But today decides intuitively proceeds instruct functions system, go exercising them. Questions told, processed through identical mold. 43 unduly compartmentalizes things up left perform role former sources reflections jurisprudence While deciding questions, ponder policy implications well latter my mind, therefore, violates positive allocation felt warranted. 44 think run serious risk reach exceed grasp attempt impose rigid logical place precise tolerably well-functioning approach adopted "abdicate" particular knowledge "suspend [its] processes." 1395, (Schroeder, dissenting). here, amended complaint named faculty discrimination violation Rehabilitation Act 1973, 87 Stat. 355, 701 et seq.; denial unconstitutional interference liberty property interests; negligent distress; privacy; wrongful dismissal; express covenants dealing; breach contract. entered summary 649 F.Supp. 391, 407 (R.I.1986). "the plausibility jurisdiction." 393, 1. 899 (1989), therein. Note, What Proper Standard Reviewing Interpretation Substantive Law?, 54 U.Cin.L.Rev. 215 (1985), Nondeferential Review Decisions Courts, Wash. Lee L.Rev. 1311 (1985). Woods, Enigma: Conclusions Ariz.L.Rev. 755 Law/Fact Distinction Unsettled Texas 157 inexplicably declined dissent's "quite natural" rely "experience" judges. 241-242. persuaded chooses expend discretionary any relevance properly definitively instituted finally removed certification procedure utilized. procedure. Lehman Brothers Schein, 416 386, 390-391, 94 1741, 1743-1744, (1974) ("We suggest available, resort obligatory. does, save time, energy, helps build federalism. Its rests sound discretion court") (footnote "As proposition, sits especially complex personal acquaintance state. reason voiced reluctance administration, defensible. tendency beyond reached permissible thinks otherwise, treating fact. experienced respect party he tried court." C. Wright, Miller, Cooper, Practice Procedure 4507, pp. 106-110 (1982)

Category: 8