|
|
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958)
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. No. 57 Argued January 28, 1958 Restored to the calendar for reargument March 3, 1958 Reargued April 28-29, 1958 Decided May 19, 1958 356 U.S. 525
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, petitioner sued in the Federal District Court to recover for injuries allegedly caused by respondent’s negligence. Respondent asserted as an affirmative defense that petitioner was respondent’s employee for purposes of the State Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that the Act provided petitioner’s exclusive remedy. After hearing respondent’s evidence on this issue, the trial judge struck the defense without hearing petitioner’s evidence. The Court of Appeals, holding that, under state law, respondent had established its defense, reversed and directed that judgment be entered for respondent.
Held: judgment reversed and cause remanded. Pp. 526-540.
1. The Court of Appeals erred in directing judgment for respondent without allowing petitioner an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of respondent’s affirmative defense. Pp. 528-533.
2. Notwithstanding state decisions holding that this statutory defense must be decided by the judge alone, petitioner is entitled in a federal court to have the factual issues raised by the defense presented to the jury. Pp. 533-540.
(a) The state rule requiring judge determination of this defense is not so bound up with state-created rights and obligations as to require its application in federal courts under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. Pp. 535-536.
(b) Although jury determination of the issue may substantially affect the outcome of the case, the policy of Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, does not invariably prevail over an affirmative federal policy favoring jury determination of disputed factual questions. Pp. 536-539.
(c) There is here no such strong possibility that the outcome of the suit would be affected by jury determination of the defense as to require federal practice to yield in the interest of uniformity. Pp. 539-540.
238 F.2d 346 reversed, and cause remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958) in 356 U.S. 525 356 U.S. 526. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GUVAURGHJQ75YCP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958), in 356 U.S. 525, page 356 U.S. 526. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GUVAURGHJQ75YCP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958). cited in 1958, 356 U.S. 525, pp.356 U.S. 526. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GUVAURGHJQ75YCP.
|