*1 Rоnson v. Walters, No. 83-5379. Commissioner of Corrections A. 2d Certiorari C. Cir. York, et al. f New o denied. C. A. 3d Cir.
No. 83-5392. v. United States. Servidio denied. Certiorari A. 4th C. Garrison, 83-5395. Hаrren Warden.
No. v. denied. Cir. Certiorari Crim. App. Ct.
No. 83-5401. Marshall v. Oklahoma. Certiorari denied. Okla. Washington Department
No. 83-5409. Groce v. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. et al. Correctiоns 83-5418. C. A. 6th Cir. Foltz, No. Johnson Warden. denied. Certiorari v. Denton A. 6th
No. 83-5422. C. Cir. Edwards et al. denied. Certiorari
No. 83-5433. C. A. 8th Cir. Jameson United States. Certiorari denied. Tung Lam A.
Nо. 83-5479. Lau C. 2d v. United States. denied. Cir. Certiorari aka Latif
No. 83-5482. C. A. Johnson, United States. 4th denied. Cir. Certiorari Gallop
No. 83-5492. C. A. 9th Cir. United States. Certiorari denied. Simрson v. United C. A. 5th Cir. States. denied.
Certiorari No. D. App. 83-5506. Clark Ct. C. v. United States. denied. Certiorari
No. 82-1861. McCarren Springfield, et al. v. Town of A. 2d Cir. C. Certiorari deniеd. Vermont, et al. Rehnquist, dissenting. Vermont,
The town of Springfield, op- wishes to construct and hydroelectric generating facility erate a оn the Black neighboring *2 River, and June to the Federal applied Energy Regula- tory Commission for a license to so. on do FERC has never ruled Cavendish, this In the application. January town Ver- mont, Vermont petitioned the Public Service Board for a declara- tory judgment Springfield’s proposed project that subject Ann., §248 the of Vt. Tit. provisions (Supp. 1983), Stat. states that as defined . . . company may begin “[n]o site [herein] for or construction of an electric preparation generating facility . . within the state . unless the . . . board a certificаte [issues of public good].” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a-59a.
Springfield appeared before the Public Service Board and cоn- tended that FERC’s the jurisdiction pre-empted author- ity Board, argument the but after and briefing the Board ruled § that had under 248 prohibited Springfield and frоm commencing site until preparation Springfield obtained a certifi- public good. cate of
Although Vermont law Springfield right affordеd a from the Supreme Board’s decision to the of Vermont, Court Springfield right. Instead, did not avail itself of this it collater- ally ruling by attacked thе Board’s an action filed in the United Vermont, seeking States District Court for the District of a de- claratory judgment that the was null and on void Court, pre-emptive grounds. thorough District in a and opinion, well-reasoned by peti- canvassed related issues raised proceeding rеspondent’s tioners as a defense to its with the suit: abstention, and the judicata, principles Younger v. 549 F. Supp. Rejecting them, it ruled in favor of pre- on the merits claim, and the Court of for emption substantially affirmed forth in the opinion the reasons set District Court. 722 F. I grant 2d 728 would certiоrari to review the District Court’s refusal to accord to the judicata weight determina- of the Vermont tion Public Service Board.
The District Court held that res not apply, did beyond policy against permitting “the to act its juris [the Board] policy underlying judi- outweighs diction doctrine оf res Court, F. Supp., relying cata.” 549 at 1148. The District on our (1963), Duke, and Kalb v. decisions Durfee Feuerstein, in effect held that where plaintiff merits of thе issue tendered could result the state regulatory conclusion that the federal scheme ousted scheme, not I think mis apply. does regulatory relied, which the District upon the decisions reads Ireland, in Insurance Corporation recent decision slights our Guinee, dеs Bauxites de Compagnie Ltd. v. Court said: (1982),where the n. 9 opportunity litigate ques- that has had an
“A party subject-matter may not, reopen tiоn of upon judgment. in a collateral attack adverse judicata apply the rule that of res long It has been per- matter and subject determinations —both jurisdictional Dist. Baxter County Drainage Chicot sonal. See *3 Gottlieb, Bank, (1940); 371 Stoll v. 165 (1938).” Feuerstein was a case in which hаd confided Congress
Kalb v. jurisdiction for settlement of claims to the federal bank- exclusive thereby ousted the state courts of ruptсy courts, 440. S., here, although to such claims. 308 U. But adjudicate may correct entirely the federal courts have reached conсlusion issue, is not the pre-emption on the merits of the federal there of suggestion Congress by legislation remotest enactment hydroеlectric to authorizing projects federal intended hear deprive authority Vermont Public Service Board of to any otherwise within relating projects claim to such that would be the Board.
Although the fact that
case
adjudicating agency
court,
rather than а
agency,
may
a state
state
make some differ
judicata
as to the extent to
principles apply,
ence
is
of the issuе.*
dispositive
“Occasionally
no means
courts have
language
used
to the effect that
do not
but such
proceedings,
language
to administrative
is cer
apply
Mining
too broad.” United States v. Utah Construction &
tainly
(1966)(footnotes omitted).
394, 421-422
Co., 384 U. S.
Berryhill,
in Gibson may
present
open
left
*This case
also
(1973):
564,
required by
whether
were
the line of
575-577
Younger
to
beginning
pursue
cases
with
in federal intervention to state At a time when judges and observers are increasingly concerned courts, with the wоrkload of the federal application princi- ples to disputes such as this both might conserve time and make for orderly courts a more resolu- tion of this and disputes. similar Schaefer National Labor Relations BdCir. Certiorari denied.
Board. O’Connor, with whom Justice Powell and Justice
Rehnquist join, dissenting.
I would grant certiorari this case to clarify application of the National Labor Relations private of deferral to disputes. resolutions labor The applies pol- Board this formal icy to both arbitral and nonarbitral settlements of labor disputes, including settlements of unfair practice charges. See Cen- Cartage Co., tral case, 206 N. L. R. B. In this made apparent concessions ne- collective-bargаining gotiations get to employees’ union withdraw its unfair labor charges. N. B. See 246 L. R. Pe- titioner also cash paid employees settlеments in exchange for waivers of backpay they might be entitled to receive. 261 refused, N. L. R. B.
defer to the union’s waiver
the parties
had not resolved
*4
the legal
charges
merits of the
and beсause
had not
petitioner
provided substantial
for his unfair
practice.
remedies
B.,
N. L. R.
at 190.
also determined that
employees сould not settle their backpay claims without Board
approval
petitioner
and ordered
to make full
restitution.
N. L. R.
atB.,
273. The
Circuit
fоr the Third
affirmed.
I—I The Board’s application of its deferral in this case is inexplicable. For example, Board asserts that the settlement negotiations did not address and resolve unfair labor indicates, claims. Brief in 7-8. The Opposition clearly record however, and, ironically, Board’s General Counsel found ob- jectionable, B., see 246 N. L. R. concerning
union engaged extensive discussions withdrawal