Legal Document

503 U.S. 249 112 S.Ct. 1146 117 L.Ed.2d 391 CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,v.Thomas M. GERMAIN, Trustee for the Estate of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc. No. 90-1791. Argued Jan. 21, 1992. Decided March 9, Syllabus In a suit by respondent Germain, trustee bankrupt debtor's estate, seeking to hold petitioner Connecticut National Bank (CNB) liable various torts and breaches contract, Bankruptcy Court denied CNB's motion strike Germain's demand jury trial, District affirmed. The Appeals dismissed attempted appeal lack jurisdiction, holding that court appeals may exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory order in bankruptcy only when district issues after having withdrawn case from court, not acts its capacity as appeals. Held: An issued sitting is appealable under unambiguous language 28 U.S.C. § 1292. That section provides review courts appeals, certain circumstances, "[i]nterlocutory orders courts," does limit such trial rather than appellate courts. Title 158(d)—which gives over, inter alia, all final bankruptcy, but silent orders—does unadorned words 1292 negative implication. Contrary contention, giving effect 1292's companion provision, 1291—which confers "final decisions courts" acting any would render 158(d) wholly superfluous. Although §§ 1291 do overlap, also panels, each reaches cases other not. Redundancies across statutes are unusual events drafting, where, here, there no positive repugnancy between two laws, must give both. Pp. 251-254. 926 F.2d 191 (CA2 1991), reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment. O'CONNOR, judgment, WHITE BLACKMUN, Janet C. Hall, Hartford, Conn., petitioner. Thomas respondent. Justice THOMAS Court. 1 this case, we determine appealability bankruptcy. 2 * 1984, Co. petition United States Connecticut. began reorganization Chapter 11 Code, 1986 converted it into liquidation 7. Petitioner successor interest one creditors. Respondent Germain estate. 3 On June 1, 1987, sued CNB state bank contract. removed Connecticut, which, pursuant local rule, automatically referred proceeding overseeing liquidation. then trial. moved demand. motion, re 103 B.R. 388 (Conn.1989), affirmed, v. Nat. Bank, 57 (Conn.1990). 4 tried Second Circuit, jurisdiction. (1991). Circuit held or We granted certiorari, 502 ----, 294, 116 239 (1991), now reverse remand. II 5 Courts have States" 1292.* contends 1292(b) applies terms therefore could exercised discretionary appeal. argues apply at because Congress limited through 158(d), deals with responds nothing limits agree CNB. 6 governed most part 158. This comprises four subsections, three concern us here. Subsection (a) authority hear noted, had provision (b) permits judicial council circuit establish panel fill role subsection (a). (d), pivotal provides: 7 "The shall decisions, judgments, orders, decrees entered subsections section." 8 Neither nor 158 mentions parties agree, they must, did confer on Appeals. 9 either, his view, precludes reasons follows: appear cover universe courts—with conferring courts, ones—that cannot fact be so. If he argues, superfluous, since decision still court. effect, contends, exclusive within own domain, defines 158(a) When enters capacity, concludes, can if not, else can. claims find support view reading legislative history 158(d). 10 need choose hand pose either-or proposition. Section capacity. contrast, act 158(a), panels 158(b). Sections therefore, reach. so long "positive repugnancy" Wood States, 16 Pet. 342, 363, L.Ed. 987 (1842), Because both read precluding implication, exercising similarly While should disfavor interpretations canon apply. 12 event, canons construction more rules thumb help meaning legislation, interpreting statute always turn first one, cardinal before others. stated time again presume legislature says what means there. See, e.g., Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 235, 241-242, 109 1026, 1030-1031, 290 (1989); Goldenberg, 168 95, 102-103, 18 3, 4, 42 394 (1897); Oneale Thornton, Cranch 53, 68, 150 (1810). unambiguous, then, last: "judicial inquiry complete." Rubin 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 66 633 (1981); see supra, U.S., 241, S.Ct., 1030. 13 points different result. But think applicability begins ends say States." orders. Nowhere nowhere else, whether statute, has indicated some way "It dangerous extreme infer . instrument expressly provide, exempted operation." Sturges Crowninshield, Wheat. 122, 202, 529 (1819); Regents Univ. Cal. Public Employment Relations Bd., 485 589, 598, 108 1404, 1410, 99 664 (1988). There reason either meant proceedings. So party meets conditions imposed 1292, rely basis 14 judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 15 It ordered. Whenever uncertainty about prudent examine history.1 examination appropriate petitioner's interpretation creates overlap 1291. 17 Rejecting position, concluded enacting current system scope 1292(b), excluding intended significant change scheme indication purpose almost certainly found history. record, however, contains mention intent 1292(b). silence tends conclusion was intended.2 Accordingly, notwithstanding inferences drawn Appeals, actually supports it. For reason, I Court's textual analysis, concur 19 whom BLACKMUN join, 20 enacted Amendments Federal Judgeship Act probably intend deprive their longstanding cases. admit largely strive interpret avoid redundancy. Cf. ante, 253-254. far likely inadvertently created redundancy withdraw roundabout method reconferring below reason. relevant part: "(a) [T]he from: "(1) Interlocutory judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing dissolving injunctions, dissolve modify except where direct Supreme Court; "(2) appointing receivers, wind up receiverships take steps accomplish purposes thereof .; "(3) determining rights liabilities admiralty allowed. "(b) judge, making civil action otherwise section, involves controlling question law substantial ground difference immediate materially advance ultimate termination litigation, writing order. thereupon, discretion, permit taken order, application made ten days entry ." See Wisconsin Intervenor Mortier 501 n. 111 2476, 2485, 115 532 (1991) ("[C]ommon sense suggests benefits reviewing additional information ignoring it"). As Judge Learned Hand advised, "should construed, theorems Euclid, imagination lie behind them." Lehigh Valley Coal Yensavage, 218 F. 547, 553 1914), cert. denied, 235 705, 35 282, 59 434 (1915). Legislative helps illuminate those purposes. American Hospital Assn. NLRB, 499 1539, 113 675 (1991); Edmonds Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 256, 266-267, 2753, 2759-2760, 61 521 (1979); Harrison PPG Industries, 446 578, 602, 100 1889, 1902, 64 525 (1980) (REHNQUIST, dissenting) ("In makes sweeping relatively unorthodox well detectives consideration watchdog bark night"). Similarly, Frankfurter's scholarly observation concerning statutory text analysis history: "One listen attentively say." Frankfurter, Some Reflections Reading Statutes, 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527, 536 (1947).

Classification Label: 8