Supreme Court of the United States · 1935 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsSupreme Court jurisdictionstate court judgmentsindependent and adequate non-federal groundseverabilitygeneral lawSherman Actdismissal for want of jurisdiction
Facts
Fox Film Corporation brought a state-court action in Minnesota to recover damages for Muller's alleged breach of two contracts licensing him to exhibit films. Muller defended on the ground that the contracts were invalid under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The contracts contained an arbitration clause identical to one previously held invalid in United States v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp., and the invalidity of that clause was conceded. The Minnesota courts held that the arbitration clause was not severable from the rest of the contracts and dismissed the action.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the Minnesota judgment when the state court's decision rested on a non-federal ground—that the conceded invalid arbitration clause was inseparable from the rest of the contract—that was adequate to support the judgment, even if a federal antitrust question was also involved.
Rule
When a state-court judgment rests on two grounds, one federal and one non-federal, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment. A state-court determination that contract provisions are non-severable is a question of general, not federal, law.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Cascade Theater Supply sued Jordan Pike in Oregon state court over a distribution contract. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on two stated grounds: the contract contained a conceded unlawful appraisal clause that Oregon deemed inseverable from the rest of the agreement, and the agreement also violated a federal trade statute.
If Cascade seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of the federal statutory ruling, what is the best answer?
Explanation. When a state-court judgment rests on both a federal and a non-federal ground, Supreme Court review fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate by itself to sustain the judgment. A ruling that an invalid clause is inseverable from the rest of the contract is a non-federal ground. Because that ruling alone defeats the claim, the Court lacks jurisdiction even if the state court also addressed a federal issue. (Derived from Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935).)