Johnson v. Radio Station WOW

• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARTER, J.
• Citation: Johnson v. Radio Station WOW, 19 N.W.2d 853, 146 Neb. 429 (Neb. 1945)
• Decision Date: 20 September 1945
• Docket Number: 31685.
• Parties: JOHNSON v. RADIO STATION WOW, Inc., et al.

19 N.W.2d 853

146 Neb. 429

JOHNSON v. RADIO STATION WOW, Inc., et al.

No. 31685.

Supreme Court of Nebraska

September 20, 1945

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a judgment of the court of last resort of a state is reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, such state court in entering a judgment on the mandate may properly decide upon its own jurisdiction and upon the jurisdiction of all the inferior courts to which its appellate power extends.

2. A direction in a mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States ordering the court of last resort of the state to withhold execution on a judgment entered on issues solely within the jurisdiction of the state courts will be treated as advisory and not mandatory.

YEAGER, J dissenting

Stewart Stewart & Whitworth and Ralph W. Slocum, all of Lincoln for appellant.

Brown Crossman, West, Barton & Fitch, Rainey T. Wells, and Paul P. Massey, all of Omaha, Peterson & Devoe and Cline, williams & Wright, all of Lincoln, and William P. Kelley, of Omaha, for appellees.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and PAINE, CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, and WENKE, JJ.

CARTER Justice.

The question before us is the nature of the judgment to be entered on a mandate issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. The previous history of the case is fully recited in Johnson v. Radio Station WOW, Inc., 144 Neb. 406, 13 N.W.2d 556, and Radio Station WOW, Inc., v. Johnson, 65 S.Ct. 1475, 1482, 89 L.Ed. 569. The opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States contains the following: 'We think that State power is amply respected if it is qualified merely to the extent of requiring it to withhold execution of that portion of its decree requiring retransfer of the physical properties until steps are ordered to be taken, with all deliberate speed, to enable the Commission to deal with new applications in connection with the station.' The mandate duly filed in this court requires that the cause be 'remanded to the said Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.'

It is a fundamental rule, recognized both by this court and the Supreme Court of the United States, that the courts of last resort of the states and of the United States are peers in their respective fields. In First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762, 763, we quoted the following language with approval from Franklin v. Kelley, 2 Neb. 79: 'The United States supreme court and the supreme court of this state are peers. The decisions of the former upon the federal constitution and laws are binding on the latter; the decisions of the latter upon the Constitution and laws of Nebraska are binding on the former.' In Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, the Supreme Court of the United States restated the doctrine by adopting the language of Mr. Justice Field contained in his dissent in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 13 S.Ct. 914, 927, 37 L.Ed. 772, as follows: 'I am aware that what has been termed the general law of the country--which is often little less than what the judge advancing the doctrine thinks at the time should be the general law on a particular subject--has been often advanced in judicial opinions of this court to control a conflicting law of a state. I admit that learned judges have fallen into the habit of repeating this doctrine as a convenient mode of brushing aside the law of a state in conflict with their views. And I confess that, moved and governed by the authority of the great names of those judges, I have, myself, in many instances, unhesitatingly and confidently, but I think now erroneously, repeated the same doctrine. But, notwithstanding the great names which may be cited in favor of the doctrine, and notwithstanding the frequency with which the doctrine has been reiterated, there stands, as a perpetual protest against its repetition, the constitution of the United States, which recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the states--independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. Supervision over either the legislative or the judicial action of the states is in no case permissible except as to matters by the constitution specifically authorized or delegated to the United States. Any interference with either, except as thus permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the state, and, to that extent, a denial of its independence.'

The present action was one to set aside a lease of a radio station on the ground of fraud. This is a matter lodged solely within the jurisdiction of the Nebraska courts and the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the present case unequivocally so holds. The only possible basis for the attaching of federal jurisdiction was as to whether the judgment of this court encroached upon the powers of the Federal Radio Commission when it directed the parties 'to do all things necessary' to secure a return of the license to the defrauded society. In deciding that question, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the only question it had any power to determine.

The mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States directing this court to withhold its mandate on a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the state courts encroaches upon the plenary powers of this court and tends to undermine the autonomy and destroy the independence of the state courts in a field where they are admittedly supreme.

The contention advanced in the opinion that state power is amply respected, even if it is qualified to the extent of requiring the withholding of execution constitutes a specious argument. A recognition of a right on the part of the Supreme Court of the United States to in any manner interfere with the processes of this court within its exclusive field, or any other attempt by that court to impose its views upon this court on a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the state court, constitutes an entering wedge which will surely result in further encroachments upon state power. We recognize that state and federal courts each have fields solely within the jurisdiction of each, but we insist that there is an obligation on the part of each to abstain from all interference with the other when it perceives that the subject matter of the action is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the other. There is little or no danger of collision if each will measure its functions by the standard created for the guidance of both. But if the...