New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1902 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsfederal questionstate court reviewRev. Stat. § 709jurisdictionadequate and independent state groundrecord requirementprinted brief insufficient

Facts

The assessed property was a depressed railroad roadway running through Park Avenue or Vanderbilt Avenue East, with retaining walls and iron fencing that prevented access to the street except at side-street bridges. The railroads claimed the proposed local improvements could not possibly benefit this property, and oral testimony supported that claim. The only contrary basis was the assessors' and revision board's assessment orders, apparently resting on the view that some benefit must have accrued. In the state proceedings, however, the only pleading filed by the railroads did not raise a federal question, and their reliance in the Supreme Court rested on excerpts from a printed brief filed in the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the state-court judgment when the alleged federal constitutional objection to the assessment was not raised in the petition or otherwise properly shown by the state-court record, but appeared only in a printed brief. Also, whether review was barred where the state court dismissed on a state-law ground independent of any federal question.

Rule

To support Supreme Court review of a state-court judgment under Rev. Stat. § 709, a federal right must be specially set up or claimed in the proper manner in the state courts and must appear from the record. It is not enough that a federal question be discussed in counsel's brief, and if a federal constitutional claim is asserted, the particular provision of the Federal Constitution relied on must be identified. In addition, where the state court's judgment rests on a state-law ground wholly independent of any federal question, the writ of error will be dismissed.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Olivia Mercer challenged a municipal paving assessment in Ohio state court. Her petition argued only that the assessment exceeded the city's statutory authority, but in the state supreme court she filed a brief arguing for the first time that the assessment violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

If Olivia seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court, what is the strongest jurisdictional objection?

Explanation. Under the governing rule, Supreme Court review of a state judgment requires that the federal right be specially set up or claimed in the proper manner in the state courts and that it appear from the record. A federal issue raised only in counsel's brief does not suffice. Assignments of error filed later in the Supreme Court cannot cure that defect. (Derived from New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. New York (1902).)