ILLINOIS v. MICHIGAN
No. 57,
Orig.
Decided October 24, 1972
Per Curiam.
The State of Illinois moved to file its bill of complaint in this case on the theory that a “reciprocal treaty” between the States of Illinois and Michigan was violated by a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan which allowed recovery by two injured workmen against an Illinois re-insurance company. Federoff v. Ewing, 386 Mich. 474, 192 N. W. 2d 242 (1971). It claims that such an agreement arose when the two States enacted the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act, which contains certain reciprocal features, and that the agreement has the dignity of an interstate compact.
The State of Illinois was a party to the case decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan through the person of the Director of Insurance of the State of Illinois, who was the liquidator of the workmen's compensation insurer, Highway Insurance Co. It was the imposition of liability upon that company’s re-insurer which Illinois claims was inappropriate under the uniform act. Review of the Michigan decision should have been sought in that case by means of a petition for writ of certiorari.
It is now too late for any such petition for certiorari to be filed. But original jurisdiction of the Court is not an alternative to the redress of grievances which could have been sought in the normal appellate process, if the remedy had been timely sought.
The problem presented is essentially one between private litigants and, though the point now raised may not have been presented in the Michigan litigation, these controversies áre recurring and essentially not state concerns.
While the complaint on its face is within our original, as well as our exclusive, jurisdiction, it seems apparent from the moving papers and the response that Illinois, though nominally a party, is here “in the vindication of the grievances of particular individuals.” Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 16.
The motions to file briefs amici curiae by Jack Federoff, William F. Ewing, dba William Ewing Roofing Co., and John H. Shannon are granted.
The motion of the State of Illinois for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.
See generally Frankfurter & Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution — a Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L. J. 685 (1925); Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When is a Compact not a Compact?, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 63 (1965); Note, At the Intersection of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 59 Calif. L. Rev. 1514 (1971).
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.