Legal Document

514 U.S. 749115 S.Ct. 1745131 L.Ed.2d 820 REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO., et al., Petitionersv.Carol L. HYDE. No. 94-3. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 27, 1995. Decided May 15, Syllabus * More than three years after respondent Hyde was in an accident Ohio with a truck owned by Pennsylvania company, she filed suit county court against company and truck's driver, petitioners herein. The timely under provision that tolls running State's 2-year statute limitations lawsuits out-of-state defendants. However, while her case pending, this Court, Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 888, 108 2218, 100 896, held tolling places unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. dismissed as untimely, but it ultimately reinstated State which could not be applied retroactively to bar claims had accrued prior announcement decision. Held: Supremacy Clause bars from applying its pre-Bendix torts. Pp. __. (a) acknowledges Harper Virginia Dept. Taxation, 509 ----, 113 2510, 125 74 that, when decides applies new legal rule parties before it, then other courts must treat same "retroactive," for example, pending cases, whether or they involve predecision events. She thereby concedes invalidated makes timely. argues instead issue here is one retroactivity, Court's action permissible because all has done fashion remedy takes into consideration reliance on law. (b) There are serious problems Hyde's argument. syllabus (the legally authoritative statement holding) speaks, about remedy, retroactivity. That court's refusal dismiss ground may have reasonably relied law very sort justification Harper, found insufficient deny retroactive application rule. correctly notes apply "retroactively" find instances where rule, well-established reasons, does determine outcome case. involves no instance special circumstance might somehow justify result seeks. It concern (1) alternative way curing constitutional violation; (2) previously existing, independent basis denying relief, see, e.g., McKesson Corp Division Alcoholic Beverages Tobacco, Fla. Business Regulation, 496 18, 40-41, 110 2238, 2252-2253, 17; (3) general such qualified immunity, trumps law, reflects both interests significant policy justifications, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 2738, 73 396; (4) principle limits retroactivity itself, see Teague Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 103 334. offered more simple creating exception Harper's conceded governs Her concession means cannot prevail. 68 St.3d 240, 626 N.E.2d 75, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, KENNEDY, judgment, O'CONNOR, William E. Riedel, Ashtabula, OH, petitioners. Timothy B. Dyk, Washington, DC, respondent. Justice BREYER Court. 1 In 896 (1988), (as impermissibly burdening commerce) "tolling" effect, gave tort plaintiffs unlimited time sue (but in-state) Subsequently, us, despite Bendix, Ohio's continues This holding, our view, violates Constitution's Clause. We therefore reverse judgment. 2 led case, collision between car truck, occurred Ashtabula County, Ohio, March 5, 1984. later, August 11, 1987, Carol (respondent here) sued John Blosh, owner, Reynoldsville Casket Company (petitioners). All concede Blosh made their home would given only two bring lawsuit. See Rev.Code Ann. § 2305.10 (1991). But, were Pennsylvania, tolled limitations, making lawsuit 2305.15(A) (tolling person whom "a cause accrues" "out of" "departs from" State). 3 Ten months brought suit, supra, relied, 2305.15(A), Soon thereafter, County Common Pleas, finding indistinguishable constitutionally untimely. intermediate appellate state affirmed dismissal. suit. Its syllabus, sets forth decision, Rules Reporting Opinions Rule 1(B) (1994-1995); Akers Serv-A-Portion, 31 78, 79, n. 1, 508 964, 965, (1987), simply says, "Bendix Inc.. . (Section 16, Article I, Constitution, applied.)" 240-241, 75 (1994). granted certiorari decide Federal Constitution permits continue And, we said, conclude not. 4 2517, (1993), (new) those cases contrary notwithstanding, there question invalidated" Brief Respondent 8. 5 Although think end matter, ingeniously asks us look at what done, through lens "retroactivity," "remedy." States, degree leeway fashioning remedies ills. points Chevron Oil Co. Huson, 404 97, 92 349, 30 296 (1971), prospectively ruling 1-year governed certain cases—primarily "effectively overruled long line decisions" generous (that laches), relied. Id., 107, S.Ct., 356. insofar (selectively) permitted prospective-only possibility recharacterizing took account tailoring appropriate violation federal ---- - 2536-2537 (O'CONNOR, dissenting); American Trucking Assns., Inc. Smith, 167, 218-225, 2323, 2352-2356, 148 (1990) (STEVENS, dissenting). quotes Harlan, who, Oil, pointed out "equitable considerations" "reliance" prove relevant "relief." Estate Donnelly, 397 286, 296-297, 90 1033, 1039, 25 312 (1970) (concurring opinion). 6 Thus, asks, why if effort law? Here, actually consist providing or, put matter precisely, continuing toll hers, "equitable" device reasons fairness. use (such Due Process Clause) permissible. 7 One problem argument lies description why, fact, refused As out, Regardless, do how, circumstances change applicable Clause, otherwise dictate calling create remedy. refusing she, others like her, law—a kind involved Oil. type justification—often present —is been first announced it). If anything symbolic significance, how virtually identical reliance, without more, sufficient permit denial characterized based "remedy" rather "non-retroactivity"? 8 tries answer pointing which, claims, allowed effectively avoid particular provide any all. these similar enough own "remedial" Bendix. examined looks support, different circumstances. 9 First, announcing judgment James Beam Distilling Georgia, 501 529, 111 2439, 115 481 (1991), once 'backward,' further remedies, i.e., party prevailing should obtain relief awarded old one." 535, 2443 (opinion Souter, J.); ("Subject possible thresholds remedial inquiry least originates court"); 178, 2331 J.) (speaking need "distinguish distinct question"); id., 210, 2348 dissenting) (distinguishing "between choice-of-law principle"). language, however, read literally context, clear ordinary "backwards," say, not, remedies. Whether so, and, depends—like almost issues—upon involved. Not concerning sort. 10 Second, tax rules holding laws unconstitutional, nonetheless designing including taxpayers, refund sought. supra; Beam, supra. (invalidating statutes) withhold (tax refunds) plaintiffs, Hyde, can (dismissal) defendants? 11 cases. suggested some them violation—a cure repaying back taxes. 17 (1990). Where depends, critical part, differential treatment classes individuals, either similarly burdening, unburdening, groups. stemmed from, taxing retirement funds group (retired Government employees) another government employees), Davis Michigan Treasury, 803, 1500, 891 (1989), (imposing, taxes advantaged group, extent permissible), neither (and refunding taxes). Cf. Corp., 40-41 23, 2252-2253 23. chooses first, taxpayers receive refund. flows "retroactivity" fact taxpayer attacked now satisfies Constitution. 12 imagine roughly comparable situation context. Suppose violated treating defendants differently, (in-state defendants) 4-year second (out-of-state defendants). cured (imaginary) groups, Had chosen longer violate imaginary hand, (allowing proceed) statute's unconstitutionality. claim critically depends Commerce 13 Other examples different, problems. collects later holds unconstitutional. Taxpayers unconstitutionally collected Retroactive seem entitle pre-existing, separate, having nothing retroactivity—a containing procedural requirements suit—nonetheless barred taxpayers' suit? 45, 2254; Reich Collins, 513 547, 550, 130 454 Depending satisfied provisions independently claim. 2254. 14 scenario commonplace each recovery, invalidates will make difference result. other, adequate remains place. within protection principle, did rest preexisting, separate (having retroactivity) proceed. Rather, maintenance continued principle—a 15 Third, imposes limitation "retroactive" To understand argument, consider following scenario: Smith sues police officer claiming injury arrest; asserts arrest constitutional; holds, Smith's case; (5) still wins grounds immunity "clearly established" arrest. generally 396 (1982). sense, lost reason mentioned above, namely previously-existing, being established") acknowledge, reflect considerations. particular, officials rely so lest threat liability " 'dampen ardor most resolute, irresponsible [public officials], unflinching discharge duties.' 814, 2736 (quoting Gregoire Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949)). "society whole," bear "the expenses litigation, diversion official energy pressing public issues, deterrence able citizens acceptance office." U.S., 2736. These facts—that set considerations creation well-established, law—distinguish alone amounts ad hoc exemption 16 Finally, starting 334 habeas corpus petitioner doing require criminal doctrine, much inherent itself. New principles, even retroactively, already closed. 296, 1039 (Harlan, concurring) (at point, rights considered frozen" "conviction final"). doctrine embodies concerns related imposition damages persons office, concerns—related collateral review convictions—that affect closed, retroactivity-related purposes, No finality-related here. upshot shows, examples, unsurprising violation, "finality" instance; nor offers (of ) retroactivity—in words, reason, apply. started. necessary concession, 18 19 Reversed. 20 THOMAS joins, concurring. 21 I join assumes denied unconstitutionality statute, refutes notion "remedial discretion" allow effect. theory presented argued, properly decided basis. 22 write separately, record my doubt presents discretion A not—in nature things —give since itself cognizable "wrong." (If were, every citizen standing challenge law.) regard ignore it. "disregarding [unconstitutional] law," Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, L.Ed. 60 (1803) (emphasis added), repugnant "is void, Ex parte Siebold, 371, 376, 717 (1880). plaintiff seeks return money taken ignores finds taking property wrongful, provides Or enjoin acts, harmful him, regulatory enjoins, execution acts official, notwithstanding." Massachusetts Mellon, 262 447, 488-489, 43 597, 601, 67 1078 (1923) added). sense speak discretion." 23 ignoring (which bound do) conclusion provided (over discretion). resulted sought provided. Respondent's concededly untimely ante, When moved replied virtue provision, 2305.15(A). "was inoperative never passed," Chicago, I. & L.R. Hackett, 228 559, 566, 33 581, 584, 57 966 (1913). 24 contemplation then, trial (absent valid statute) dismiss. gives substance invalid. add rubric invalid: discretion. O'CONNOR 26 today's surrender advance authority exceptional shape light disruption important unfairness caused unexpected judicial decisions. foresee myriad arise. take considerations: involving protects officials' clearly established (1982); among objectives, existing conviction becomes final, 310, 1075, (1989). ____. seems areas importance disturbed precludes Supra, statutes falls category circumstances, Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis, Petigrow Gilbertson, 350, 371-374, 2773, 2786-2788, 321 (1991) 379, 2790 (KENNEDY, 221-222, 2354-2355, Saint Francis College Al-Khazraji, 604, 107 2022, 95 582 (1987); consistent tradition formulate ensuring fair predictable enforcement instance, pertaining waiver. 221, 2354 (citing Braun Sauerwein, Wall. 218, 223, 895 (1870)). hard soon resolve it; area is, ought be, shaped urgent necessities confront strong limiting 27 address entitled full arises right predicated Johnson, 537, 549, 2579, 2587, 202 (1982), announce civil announces "either overruling past precedent litigants deciding impression whose resolution foreshadowed." 106, 355; cf. 301, 1070 (new context "dictated defendant's became attempt argue decision precedent. foreshadowed. explicit acknowledge "[a]pplying well-settled principles," 889, 2220, foreshadowed precedents. 28 Brown-Forman Distillers York Liquor Authority, 476 573, 578-579, 106 2080, 2083-2084, 552 (1986), identified modes analysis evaluate invalid "directly regulates discriminates commerce, effect favor in-state economic over interests," 2084; balance interest commerce "has indirect effects evenhandedly," ibid. Pike Bruce Church, 142, 844, 847, 174 (1970)). balancing test well predictable. 29 fails fronts. observed blatant affront engaging test. 891, 2220; also 898, 2224 (Scalia, concurring). standard 894-895, 2222-2223; "application directly controls stuff made," 2526, (1993) part judgment); Wright West, 505 277, 309, 112 2482, 2499, 120 225 (1992) judgment) ("Where beginning point application, designed specific purpose evaluating factual contexts, infrequent yields novel forges dictated precedent"); Keene 2035, 2044, 124 118 (slip op., 15) (case resolved "under law"); Hanover Shoe, Shoe Machinery 392 481, 496, 88 2224, 2233, 1231 (1968) unless indicates "that novel, innovative principles settled manner view [the Court]"). mere precedent," 2526 judgment), "decide 'an impression,' Ashland Caryl, 497 916, 920, 3202, 3205, 734 (per curiam 355), come blue," 556, 2454, (O'Connor, dissenting), represent "an avulsive current thereafter flow banks," 499, 2234. ground, postponing extended discussion requires issue. constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499.

Classification Label: 3