|
|
Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992)
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.
Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992)
Willy v. Coastal Corporation No. 90-1150 Argued Dec. 3, 1991 Decided March 3, 1992 503 U.S. 131
Syllabus
After petitioner Willy sued respondent Coastal Corporation in Texas state court, alleging that Coastal fired him in violation of, inter alia, federal and state environmental law "whistleblower" provisions, Coastal removed the case to Federal District Court. That court rejected Willy’s argument that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. It also imposed sanctions against him, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, based on conduct in the case that was unrelated to petitioner’s effort to convince the court that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, but upheld the court’s decision to award sanctions and remanded the case for the court to determine the amount. On a second appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected Willy’s argument that the District Court had no authority to impose sanctions in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
Held: A court may impose Rule 11 sanctions in a case in which the district court is later determined to be without subject matter jurisdiction. Pp. 134-139.
(a) While the expansive language of Rules 1 and 81(c) indicates a clear intent to have the Rules, including Rule 11, apply to all district court civil proceedings, the Rules must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III, see Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1. Pp. 134-135.
(b) The District Court’s order in this case does not lie outside the range of action constitutionally permitted to an Article III court. Willy concedes that Congress has the power to regulate the courts and to authorize the imposition of sanctions. He errs in contending that Rule 11 sanctions must be aborted whenever it is determined that a court lacked jurisdiction at the time the objectionable conduct occurred. A court’s concern with the maintenance of orderly procedure, even in the wake of a jurisdictional ruling later found to be mistaken, justifies the conclusion that the sanction here need not be upset. See, e.g., United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258. Because it deals with the issue whether the court’s rules were violated, the instant order is collateral to the merits of the case. Thus, it implicates no constitutional concern, because it does not deal with the court’s assessment of the complaint’s legal merits, over which the court lacked jurisdiction. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384. And the District Court’s interest in having rules of procedure obeyed did not disappear with the subsequent determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72. Pp. 135-139.
915 F.2d 965 (CA5 1990), affirmed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992) in 503 U.S. 131 503 U.S. 132. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JS1LFE9L6QB6K24.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992), in 503 U.S. 131, page 503 U.S. 132. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JS1LFE9L6QB6K24.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992). cited in 1992, 503 U.S. 131, pp.503 U.S. 132. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=JS1LFE9L6QB6K24.
|