DEEN v. HICKMAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, et al.
No. 133,
Misc.
Decided October 27, 1958.
David C. McCord and Robert Lee Guthrie for petitioner.
Luther Hudson for the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co., respondent.
Per Curiam.
In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925, this Court, having held “that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s Conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury,” reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court’s decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. On review, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals “with directions ... to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of the defendant ... is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice, and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.” The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision- of this case.
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.