PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. YAHN & McDONNELL, INC., et al.
No. 86-231.
Argued April 27, 1987
Decided May 18, 1987
Gary M. Ford argued the cause for appellants in both cases. With him on the briefs for appellant in No. 86-231 were Peter H. Gould, David F. Power, Kenneth S. Getter, Kathryn A. Oberly, and Mitchell L. Strickler. Richard H. Markowitz and Paula R. Markowitz filed briefs for appellants in No. 86-253.
Carl L. Taylor argued the cause for appellees in both cases. With him on the brief were Glenn Summers and William H. Ewing.
Together with No. 86-253, United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan et al. v. Yahn & McDonnell, Inc., et al., also on appeal from the same court.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 86-231 were filed for the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans by Gerald M. Feder, David R. Levin, and Nik B. Edes; and for the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1950 and 1974 Pension Plans by Israel Goldowitz.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in both cases were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Stephen A. Bokat and Robin S. Conrad; and for Flying Tiger Line Inc., et al. by Douglas D. Broadwater, R. Franklin Balotti, Jesse A. Finkelstein, William W. Bowser, and Lawrence M. Nagin.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.