opinion: PENNSYLVANIA v. NEW YORK et al.
  No. 40,
  Orig.
  Decided June 19, 1972
  Decree entered June 19, 1972
  DECREE
  It is now Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
  1. Each item of property in question in this case as. to which a last known address of the person entitled thereto is shown on the books and records of the defendant, Western Union Telegraph Co., is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by the State of that last known address, as shown on the books and records of defendant, Western Union Telegraph Co., to the extent of that State's power under its own laws, to escheat or take custodially.
  2. Each item of property in question in this case as. to which thére is no address of the person entitled thereto shown on the books and records of defendant Western Union Telegraph Co. is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New York, the State in which Western Union Telegraph Co. was incorporated, to the extent of New York's power under its own laws to escheat or take custodially, subject to the right of any other State to recover such property from New York upon proof that the last known address of the creditor was within that other State's borders.
  3. Each item of property in question in this case as to which the last known address of the. person entitled thereto as shown on the books and records of .defendant Western Union'Telegraph Co. is in a- State the laws of which do not provide, for the escheat of such property, is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New York, the State in which Western Union Telegraph Co. was incorporated, to the. extent of New York's power under its own laws to escheat or- to take cus-todially, subject- to the right of the State of the last known address to recover the property from New York if and when the law of the State of the last known address makes provisions for escheat or custodial taking of such property.
instruction: 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.