STRATTON
v.
STRATTON

U.S. | 1915-11-08
No. 618
239 U.S. 55 Supreme Court of the United States (1915) Caution
Also reported at: 60 L. Ed. 142 · 36 S. Ct. 26 · SCDB 1915-050 · 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1509
Cited by 26 cases

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.

Synopsis

A writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court to reverse an Ohio Court of Appeals judgment, but the Ohio Supreme Court possessed discretionary authority under state law to review the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it cannot assume authority to decide whether a case falls within the exceptional class of matters the Ohio Supreme Court deemed worthy of its discretionary review, and that the proper practice requires the state's highest court to exercise its discretion before federal review can be pursued.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr.. Chief Justice White,

Memorandum opinion by

Mr.. Chief Justice White,

by direction of the court.

Tri reverse a judgment rendered by the Ohio Court of Appeals of the Seventh Appellate District on the ground of Federal errors committed, this writ of error is prosecuted to that court. There is a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the court of last authority, the Supreme Court of the State, was the highest court in which a decision in the suit could be had. This rests not upon the contention that in all cases as a matter of right and of duty the Supreme Court was given authority to review the judgments and decrees of the Courts of Appeals, but upon the proposition that under the constitution and laws of Ohio the Supreme. Court was vested with power to review in every case the judgments or decrees of the Courts of Appeals where in the exercise of its judgment the Supreme Court deemed them to be of such public or great general interest as to require review..

The premise upon which the proposition is based being undoubtedly accurate, indeed not disputable (Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, § 2; City of Akron v. Roth, 88 Ohio St. 457), we think the motion to dismiss must prevail. True, it is urged that under the Ohio law the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not imperative, but gracious or discretionary, thht is, depending upon its judgment as to whether the case was one of publie or great general interest — an exceptional class in which the case before us, it is insisted, we must now decide.was riot embraced. But this simply invites us to assume jurisdiction by exercising an authority which we have not, that is, by indulging in conjecture as to what would or would not have been the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio if it had been called upon to exert the discretion vested in it by state laws. When the significance of the proposition upon which the claim of jurisdiction is based is thus fixed, it is not open to contention, as it has long since been adversely disposed of. Fisher v. Perkins, 122 U. S. 522; Mullen v. West. Un. Beef Co., 173 U. S.

116. Indeed, conforming to the rule.thus thoroughly established, the practice for years has been in the various States where discretionary power to review exists in the highest court of the State, to invoke the exercise of such discretion in order that upon the refusal to do so there might be no question concerning the right to review in this* court. See West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364; Norfolk Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264; St. Louis San Francisco Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • THE Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988)
    …court is discretionary is irrelevant; the litigant still must seek such review in order to proceed to the United States Supreme Court. American Ry. Express v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19, 20-21, 44 S.Ct. 11, 12-13, 68 L.Ed. 140 (1923); Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U.S. 55, 56-57, 36 S.Ct. 26, 27, 60 L.Ed. 142 (1915). It is therefore essential to the preservation of a litigant’s right to United States Supreme Court review that he or she know with certainty the avenues of appellate review required by the courts of the…
    1 / 2
  • Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1923)
    …ion of the State the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is discretionary, Art. 7, § 11, and although it was necessary for the petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction in order to make it certain that the case could go no' farther, Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U. S. 55, when the jurisdiction was declined the. Gourt of Appeal was shown to be the highest Court [*21] of the State in which a decision could be had. • Another section of the article cited required the Supreme Court to' give its reasons for refusing the w…
  • Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. N. Realty Co., 244 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1917)
    …view, however, of the denial by that court of the application to direct the Court of Appeals to certify the record for review, and its order dismissing the writ of error for want of jurisdiction,the contention is without merit. Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U. S. 55; Valley Steamship Company v. Wattawa, 241 U. S. 642; Second National Bank v. First National Bank, 242 U. S. 600. 2. It is contended that, conceding the existence of federal questions in the case, nevertheless as there were independent state grounds…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw