Court Opinion

ID: 9427900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:12.999891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.412105
License: Public Domain

Mb. Justice Powell,
concurring in the judgment.
I continue to believe that Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573, 595 (1974) (Powell, J., dissenting), was decided wrongly, but I recognize the utility of stare decisis in cases of this kind, id., at 596. Since I see no rational basis for drawing a distinction between fatal and nonfatal injuries, I join in the judgment of the Court.
Mb. Justice Maeshall,
with whom Mb. Justice Stewaet and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join,
dissenting.
After certiorari has been granted, and a case has been briefed and argued, there is an inevitable pressure to decide it, especially when the argument for a dismissal is based on the seemingly technical requirements of finality. In this case, however, it is plain to me that the decision below is not final, and that the Court is therefore without jurisdiction to review it under 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
Respondent Gilberto Alvez brought suit against petitioner in the New York Supreme Court for injuries incurred during the course of his employment on petitioner’s vessel. He moved to amend the complaint to add his spouse, Juanita Alvez, as a plaintiff. His motion was denied. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division. This Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the New York Court of Appeals.
After certiorari had been granted, and while the case was being briefed in this Court, the litigants proceeded to try the *287case in the New York Supreme Court. Two weeks before the case was argued here, Gilberto Alvez received a jury verdict against petitioner in the sum of $500,000, and Juanita Alvez received $50,000. In oral argument before this Court, counsel for petitioner indicated that petitioner is appealing the judgment on grounds of improper jury instructions.1 If petitioner’s appeal is successful, it seems plain that both verdicts will be reversed.
In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the Court’s conclusion that the decision below is final. Nothing in the record before us supports the suggestion that “ 'the federal issue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require decision regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings.’ ” Ante, at 279, quoting Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 480 (1975). The federal issue may neither survive nor require decision if peti*288tioner is successful in future state-court proceedings. Therefore, the finality requirement of § 1257 precludes us from deciding the case. Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, 351 U. S. 493 (1956); Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62 (1948).
Even if I were to accept the unfounded premise that the federal issue will necessarily survive,- I would not agree that the order of the New York Court of Appeals was rendered final by developments subsequent to the grant of certiorari. The plurality apparently concedes that when we granted certiorari, the New York Court of Appeals’ order allowing leave to amend was not appealable. Ante, at 277. After that order was entered, the procedural posture of the case was the same as if the trial court had granted leave to amend in the first place. Such an order would not, of course, have been final; in the plurality’s own words, it “was only the predicate to a decision on the merits of the claim for loss of society.” Ibid. If this reasoning is correct, I do not believe that a subsequent trial — conducted after we have granted certiorari — can vest jurisdiction in this Court. I have been unable to find any case, and the plurality points to none, that supports the apparent adoption of a contrary rule. Indeed, our cases appear uniformly to assume that finality is determined as of the time that certiorari is sought. See Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, 268 (1942).2
For three reasons, the plurality’s conclusion to the contrary strikes me as fundamentally misguided. First, it sanctions the practice of granting certiorari to review nonfinal orders, and thus treats the finality requirement as merely a policy to be considered in deciding whether we should resolve a dis*289pute. The finality requirement, of course, is no such thing; it determines whether we have the power to render a decision. Jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be disregarded simply because it seems more economical for the Court to decide the case. Second, it encourages litigants to seek review of non-final judgments in the hope that subsequent events will render them final. Such a practice only retards the speedy resolution of disputes and multiplies the burdens of litigation. Finally, and most disturbing, today’s decision encourages litigants and lower courts to proceed to try a case in which this Court has granted certiorari and which is simultaneously being briefed and argued in this Court. That result cannot easily coexist with one of the basic principles on which our judicial system is premised, that two courts cannot have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time. See 9 J. Moore, B. Ward, & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice § 203.11 (1975), and cases cited. The necessity for adhering to that rule in these circumstances is plainly suggested by the waste of judicial resources that would result if the Court decided to reverse the Court of Appeals and thus to render the trial court proceedings with respect to Juanita Alvez a complete nullity.
It should always be remembered that the “considerations that determine finality . . . have reference to very real interests — not merely those of the immediate parties but, more particularly, those that pertain to the smooth functioning of our judicial system.” Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, supra, at 69. Accordingly, the Court’s salutary adoption of a “practical rather than a technical construction” of the finality requirement, Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949), is not a license for ignoring the requirement entirely, or for interpreting it without regard for its legitimate underlying purposes. The finality requirement “serves several ends: (1) it avoids piecemeal review of state court decisions; (2) it avoids giving advisory opinions in cases where there may be no real ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ in *290the sense of Art. Ill; (3) it limits review of state court determinations of federal . . . issues to leave at a minimum federal intrusion in state affairs.” North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder’s Stores, 414 U. S. 156, 159 (1973). See also Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, supra; Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 123-124 (1945). All of these purposes may be jeopardized by the decision today. We can have no assurance that there are not other federal issues in the case that will reach the Court at some point in the future. The decision the Court announces may be entirely advisory if the appellate courts in New York rule in favor of the petitioner. And principles of federalism counsel against reviewing the decision of the New York courts prematurely and without any necessity for doing so.
In my view, the proper disposition in these circumstances would be to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, and to permit the state courts to resolve the pending appeal. If the federal question still survives after the judgment of the highest state court becomes final, petitioner may again seek a writ of certiorari to review that judgment. I dissent.

 In oral argument counsel for petitioner stated that the Appellate Division may “reverse on . . . instructions to the jury. . . .” Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. I see no basis for the suggestion that “petitioner’s appeal from the trial verdict against it will not challenge that element of the verdict which awarded damages for loss of society to Mrs. Alvez.” Ante, at 277-278. In context it seems plain that counsel’s comments on the award to Juanita Alvez were designed to indicate that there was no separate appeal with respect to the award on her behalf. But there was no suggestion that petitioner is not challenging the determination of liability as to Mr. Alvez, from whose award his spouse’s is wholly derivative. The assertion that Juanita Alvez’ award is final is contradicted by the suggestion of counsel for respondent Alvez that “if there is a problem,” the parties might “ [w] aive any right to appeal as far as the decision, as far as the judgment for Juanita Alvez is concerned below.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. Counsel conceded that, in the absence of such a waiver, “there is always the possibility that the defendant in this case might find some grounds for error in the record.” Id., at 21. The offer of a waiver of appellate rights and the concession that “some grounds for error” might be found are difficult to reconcile with the suggestion that further state-court proceedings cannot affect the award to Juanita Alvez. At the very least, the comments of counsel are highly ambiguous, and it seems odd for the plurality to indulge in very possibly incorrect speculations on the point when jurisdictional prerequisites are at stake.

 On occasion, of course, subsequent events can deprive the Court of jurisdiction over a case, as for example by rendering it moot. For reasons discussed in the text, however, I see no justification, either in precedent or in principle, for the view that subsequent events can justify a grant of certiorari to review a decision over which the Court had no- jurisdiction in the first instance.