HAMMERSTEIN
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the default judgment because it was not a final judgment from the highest state court where a decision could be had. The Court also declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over the District Court of Appeal's judgment.
Petitioner sought review of state court judgments. The Court previously continued the case to determine if the judgments rested on adequate state grou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate And Independent State Grounds Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
After argument, we continued this cause to enable the petitioner to apply for a certificate or other expression from the appropriate California courts to show whether the judgments rested on adequate and independent state grounds or whether decision of the federal question was necessary to the judgments rendered. 340 U. S. 622 (1951).
Such expressions have been obtained. The Supreme Court has informed us that its refusal to grant a writ of certiorari from the default judgment entered by the Superior Court was based upon petitioner’s failure to utilize the proper channel of review, namely, his failure to appeal from the default judgment. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction to review state court judgments extends only to final judgments rendered “by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had,” 28 U.
S. C. § 1257, we have no jurisdiction to review the proceedings arising from the default judgment.
The District Court of Appeal has informed us that the decision of the federal question was essential to its denial of the application for writ of prohibition, and that its judgment did not rest upon an independent state ground. The expression we have received from the California Supreme Court is also susceptible of the interpretation that its denial of a hearing from the judgment of the District Court of Appeal was based upon an adequate state ground. We do not consider the force of that statement since it is clear that the judgment properly before us is that of, the District Court of Appeal, which did decide the federal question. See American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U. S. 19, 20-21 (1923).
We have jurisdiction over that judgment. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 565-568 (1947); Bandini Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8 (1931), and cases cited at 14.
The presence of jurisdiction upon petition for writ of certiorari does not, of course, determine the exercise of that jurisdiction, for the issuance of the writ is discretionary. In this case petitioner could have obtained review of the final adjudication of the merits by appealing from the default judgment. The California Supreme Court has apparently refrained from taking action because of the existence of that remedy. In these circumstances we think it advisable not to exercise our jurisdiction. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Loftus v. Illinois, 337 U. S. 935 (1949); Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U. S. 431 (1948); Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806 (1948).
Writ dismissed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1953)…ed in the business of the conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws to the substantial injury of plaintiff’s business?” It should be noted that during the last Term the Court disposed of 1, 286 eases. The case of Hammerstein v. Superior Court, 341 U. S. 491, is a very recent instance of where the Court after argument took a more careful look at a grant of certiorari and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted.…
-
Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1969)…. S. 157, 159-160 (1954). It appears that plenary review by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is not a matter of right for many kinds of cases. See Va. Code Ann. §8-462 (1957 Repl. Vol.); Va. Const. §§87, 88. See Hammerstein v. Superior Court, 341 U. S. 491, 492 (1951); Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. McDonald, 214 U. S. 191 (1909); Newman v. Gates, 204 U. S. 89 (1907). Sandalow, Henry v. Mississippi and the Adequate State Ground: Proposals for a Revised Doctrine, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 187, 226. See id., at…
-
THE Monrosa v. Carbon Black Exp., Inc., 359 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1959)…metery, Inc., 349 U. S. 70, 75; Goins v. United States, 306 U. S. 622; Moor v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co., 297 U. S. 101; Southern Power Co. [*184] v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508. Cf. Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California, 341 U. S. 491, 492; McCarthy v. Bruner, 323 U. S. 673; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387, 392-393; Tyrrell, v. District of Columbia, 243 U. S. 1. Examination of a case on the merits, on oral argument, may bring into “proper focus” a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rescue Army v. Mun. Court of Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1947)
- Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8 (U.S. 1931)
- Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1923)
- Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1948)
- Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1948)
- Loftus v. Illinois, 337 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1949)
- Thompson v. Nierstheimer, 337 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1949)
- Hammerstein v. Superior Court of Cal., 340 U.S. 622 (U.S. 1951)