Certified question

Last updated

In the law of the United States, a certified question is a formal request by one court from another court, usually but not always in another jurisdiction, for an opinion on a question of law.

Contents

These cases typically arise when the court before which litigation is actually pending is required to decide a matter that turns on the law of another state or jurisdiction. If that other jurisdiction's law is unclear or uncertain, a certified question can then be sent to that jurisdiction's courts to render an opinion on the question of law that arose in the court in which the actual litigation is pending. The courts to whom these questions of law are certified are typically appellate courts or state supreme courts. [1]

In 1985, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, was authorized by constitutional amendment to accept certified questions. NYSCourtofAppeals1.JPG
In 1985, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, was authorized by constitutional amendment to accept certified questions.

History

Historically, the procedure under which one court certifies a question to another, arises out of the distinction in the law of England between common law courts and equity courts. At one time, these two were separate and parallel legal systems, differing in procedure and the sort of case each had primary jurisdiction over. From time to time, a legal issue would arise in one court that fell within the other's jurisdiction and expertise; in this situation, the two courts could certify legal questions to each other. This remains possible in the state of Delaware, which continues to have a separate Court of Chancery. [2] Charles Dickens made reference to the process of the two separate courts certifying questions to each other as a part of the interminable litigation in Jarndyce v. Jarndyce which figures in the plot of Bleak House :

Equity sends questions to law, law sends questions back to equity; law finds it can’t do this, equity finds it can’t do that; neither can so much as say it can’t do anything, without this solicitor instructing and this counsel appearing for A, and that solicitor instructing and that counsel appearing for B; and so on through the whole alphabet, like the history of the apple pie. [3]

In Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. , [4] the United States Supreme Court confronted a situation where a circuit court of appeals could not "make a competent guess" about how the Florida courts would construe an insurance statute. The court observed that the Florida legislature had passed a statute allowing the federal courts to certify questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court, but that the Florida courts had not yet made a rule establishing procedures under the statute. [5] After the Clay decision, the various states began to adopt statutes or rules allowing for the certification of questions of state law to state courts. The relatively streamlined process of sending a certified question to a state appellate court also relieves federal courts of the unwieldy procedure of Pullman abstention, under which Federal courts abstain from deciding on the constitutionality of state laws while litigation seeking the construction of those laws is pending in state courts. [6] In 1967, a Uniform Act was first proposed to establish a standard procedure for certified questions. In Lehman Bros. v. Schein , the Supreme Court praised the certified question procedure as helping to build a cooperative judicial federalism. [7]

As of 2014, forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico have established procedures under which questions of state and local law may be certified to their courts. [8] Only the state supreme court of North Carolina lacks a certification process. [9]

Certification of questions to state courts

Between state and federal courts

The typical case involving a certified question involves a Federal court, which because of diversity, supplemental, or removal jurisdiction is presented with a question of state law. In these situations, the Erie doctrine [10] requires the Federal court that acquires jurisdiction over cases governed in part by state law to apply the substantive law of the states. [11]

Generally, the Erie doctrine requires the Federal court to predict how the courts of a given state would rule and decide a given issue. Many states, however, allow certified questions to be addressed from the Federal court to the appellate court or state supreme court of that state, allowing the state court to decide those questions of law.

The state courts issuing these rulings do not consider the issuance of these rulings to be advisory opinions; they relate to genuine disputes, even though those disputes are actually pending in another court. Some state supreme courts have held that the state supreme court possesses an inherent judicial power to decide state law controversies submitted by other jurisdictions, even in the absence of a statute or rule authorizing these answers. [12] Other state courts have interpreted their states' constitutions in a manner similar to the Federal interpretation of the cases and controversies clause of the United States Constitution. The Federal courts hold that this clause restricts a court's authority to rule on moot or unripe controversies over which that court may not have jurisdiction; states that follow this rule will generally not answer certified questions of state law. In some of those states, the power to issue rulings on certified questions has been granted to the courts by constitutional amendment. [13]

Many states, by legislation or by judicial rule making, have adopted a Uniform Act called the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act . [14] The uniform act provides that a state supreme court may answer questions of law certified to it by the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, a United States district court, or the highest appellate or intermediate appellate court of any other state. The certifying court must certify the question in writing, and the state court will accept jurisdiction and decide the issue if:

  1. "questions of law of this state are involved in any proceeding before the certifying court which may be determinative of the proceeding"; or
  2. "it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court of this state."

In state courts

In some states, the name "certified question" is given to what is also known as an interlocutory appeal, a procedure under which an appellate court, at its discretion, may review a decision made by a trial court that has been made before a final judgment has been entered, and that ordinarily could not be appealed directly. [15]

Certification of questions to the United States Supreme Court

Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules allows for the certification of legal questions to the United States Supreme Court. The rule provides that "a United States court of appeals may certify to this Court a question or proposition of law on which it seeks instruction for the proper decision of a case. The certificate shall contain a statement of the nature of the case and the facts on which the question or proposition of law arises. Only questions or propositions of law may be certified, and they shall be stated separately and with precision." [16] [17]

Certification of a question of law to the United States Supreme Court is another way, in addition to the writ of certiorari, direct appeal, and original jurisdiction, by which cases can be brought to the docket of the Supreme Court. It is a very infrequent procedure, and has happened only five times over the past six decades. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mootness</span> Legal term on the status of a matter

The terms moot, mootness and moot point are used in both in English and American law, although with different meanings.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial court</span> Type of court in which trials take place

A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually made by higher courts with the power of appellate review. Most appellate courts do not have the authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of Acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two Acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Florida</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Florida

The Supreme Court of Florida is the highest court in the U.S. state of Florida. It consists of seven justices—one of whom serves as Chief Justice. Six members are chosen from six districts around the state to foster geographic diversity, and one is selected at large.

Discretionary jurisdiction is a power that allows a court to engage in discretionary review. This power gives a court the authority to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Typically, courts of last resort and intermediate courts in a state or country will have discretionary jurisdiction. In contrast, the lower courts have no such power. For this reason, the lower courts must entertain any case properly filed, so long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the questions of law and in personam jurisdiction over the parties to the case. Customarily a court is granted the power by rule, statute, or constitutional provision. When a constitutional provision establishes the court's power, it will have more limitations on its screening process. The usual intent behind granting power through a constitutional provision is to maintain decisional uniformity.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

<i>Erie</i> doctrine Doctrine in US federal civil procedure

The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question must apply state substantive law.

An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

In United States law, multidistrict litigation (MDL) refers to a special federal legal procedure designed to speed the process of handling complex cases, such as air disaster litigation or complex product liability suits.

Uniformity and jurisdiction in the tax decisions of the United States federal courts is the ongoing debate spanning many decades about achievement of uniformity and decisionmaking by federal courts when addressing tax controversies against the backdrop of multiple, regionally diverse courts with federal tax jurisdiction.

United States v. Seale is a federal criminal case in the United States, in which Ku Klux Klan member James Ford Seale was prosecuted and convicted for his role in the racially motivated murders in 1964 of two black teens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certificate of division</span> Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

References

  1. ↑ Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., "Certification of question of state law"
  2. ↑ Severns v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc., Del.Supr., 421 A.2d 1334 (1980). See also, Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 72(b) Archived 2009-10-08 at the Wayback Machine .
  3. ↑ Charles Dickens, Bleak House , ch. 8, "Covering a Multitude of Sins"
  4. ↑ 377 U.S. 179 (1960)
  5. ↑ Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. , 377 U.S. 179, (1960)
  6. ↑ Wendy L. Watson, McKinzie Craig, and Daniel Orion Davis, Federal Court Certification of State Law Questions
  7. ↑ Lehman Bros. v. Schein , 416 U.S. 386 (1974)
  8. ↑ Michael Klotz, "Avoiding Inconsistent Interpretations: United States v. Kelly, the Fourth Circuit, and the Need for A Certification Procedure in North Carolina," 49 Wake Forest L Rev 1173 [2014]
  9. ↑ Ibid.
  10. ↑ Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
  11. ↑ Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., "Court of Appeals Review of Certified Questions from Other Courts". New York Law Journal, v 231, no. 23 (Feb. 4, 2004)
  12. ↑ Watson et al., above; citing In re Elliott (Washington Sup. Ct., 1968)
  13. ↑ See, e.g., Constitution of the State of New York, Article VII, ss. 3(b)(9), ratified 1985.
  14. ↑ See, e.g., North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 47 Archived 2009-01-08 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ See, e.g., Illinois Rule of Appellate Procedure 308 Archived April 30, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  16. ↑ Supreme Court Rules, part IV, rule 19
  17. ↑ 28 U.S.C. 1254
  18. ↑ Marcia Coyle, "Supreme Court Asked to Take Certified Question for Only Fifth Time in Six-Plus Decades Archived 2010-12-05 at the Wayback Machine " (byline August 03, 2009; accessed Oct. 13, 2009)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.