Erie analysis

In May 1930 the Van Sweringen Corporation issued $30,000,000 in notes under an indenture naming Guaranty Trust Co. of New York as trustee with power to enforce noteholders' rights. In October 1930 Guaranty and other banks advanced large sums to companies affiliated with the Corporation and controlled by the Van Sweringens. When the Corporation could not meet its obligations, Guaranty participated in an exchange plan under which noteholders could surrender their notes for cash equal to 50 percent of face value plus twenty shares of Van Sweringen stock per $1,000 note; the offer remained open until December 15, 1931. In 1934 respondent York received $6,000 of the notes as a gift from a donor who had not accepted the exchange offer. In April 1940 three accepting noteholders filed the Hackner suit in federal court charging Guaranty with fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the exchange. York's motion to intervene was denied, and summary judgment for Guaranty was affirmed on appeal. On January 22, 1942, after her exclusion from the Hackner litigation, York filed the present class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of non-accepting noteholders. The complaint, resting exclusively on diversity of citizenship, alleged that Guaranty had breached its trust by failing to protect noteholders' interests when it assented to the exchange offer and by failing to disclose its own self-interest. The district court granted Guaranty's motion for summary judgment on the authority of the Hackner decision. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a federal court sitting in equity is not required to apply the New York statute of limitations that would govern an identical suit in the New York state courts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 1930 a New York resident created a revocable trust that was amended in 1931. The trust directed income from the corpus to his wife for life. It also granted her a general power of appointment. In default of appointment half the corpus passed to the decedent's heirs and half to the wife's heirs. In 1951 the wife executed an instrument that purported to release the general power and convert it into a special power. The decedent died in 1957. His estate claimed a marital deduction for the widow's trust on the federal estate tax return. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction under section 2056(b)(5) of the 1954 Code and assessed a deficiency. The estate petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination. While that proceeding was pending the estate obtained a New York Supreme Court decree declaring the 1951 release a nullity. The Tax Court accepted the decree as controlling and allowed the deduction. A divided Second Circuit affirmed. The companion case involved the estate of a Connecticut decedent who died in 1958. His will directed payment of estate taxes without proration and created a residuary trust granting his wife a general testamentary power of appointment. The Commissioner disallowed part of the marital deduction. The executor then obtained a probate court order applying the state proration statute. The District Court refused to treat the probate decree as binding on federal tax questions. The Second Circuit agreed the decree was not conclusive. The two cases reached the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit panels reached differing conclusions on the effect of the state decrees. Certiorari was granted to resolve the conflict among the circuits.

Salve Regina College is an institution of higher education located in Newport, Rhode Island. Sharon L. Russell was admitted to the college and began her studies as a freshman in 1982. The following year, Russell sought admission to the college’s nursing department to pursue a bachelor of science degree in nursing. She was accepted by the department and began her nursing studies in the fall of 1983. Russell was five feet six inches tall and weighed in excess of 300 pounds when she was accepted in the nursing program. Her weight became a topic of commentary and concern by officials of the nursing program immediately after the 1983 school year began. Her first year in the program was marked by a series of confrontations and negotiations concerning her obesity and its effect upon her ability to complete the clinical requirements safely and satisfactorily. During her junior year, Russell signed a document that was designated as a contract. The contract conditioned her further participation in the nursing program upon weekly attendance at a weight-loss seminar and a realized average loss of two pounds per week. When she failed to meet these commitments, she was asked to withdraw from the program and did so. Russell transferred to a nursing program at another college but had to repeat her junior year in order to satisfy the transferee institution’s two-year residency requirement. She also underwent surgery for her obesity. In 1987, Russell successfully completed her nursing education and is now a registered nurse. Soon after leaving Salve Regina College, Russell filed this civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. She asserted claims based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and nonperformance by the college of its implied agreement to educate her. Subject-matter jurisdiction in the District Court was based on diversity of citizenship. The parties agree that the law of Rhode Island applies to all substantive aspects of the action. At the close of plaintiff-respondent’s case in chief, the District Court directed a verdict for the individual defendants on all three of the remaining claims and for the college on the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The court denied the college’s motion for a directed verdict on the breach-of-contract claim. At the close of all the evidence, the college renewed its motion for a directed verdict on the contract claim. The District Court denied the motion and submitted the breach-of-contract claim to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Russell and determined that the damages were $30,513.40. Judgment was entered. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the circuits concerning the appropriate standard of appellate review.

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A., provided medical care to Sonia E. Galvez for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. As partial payment for that care, Galvez assigned to Shady Grove her rights to insurance benefits under a policy issued in New York by Allstate Insurance Co. Shady Grove tendered a claim for the assigned benefits to Allstate, which under New York law had 30 days to pay the claim or deny it. Allstate apparently paid, but not on time, and it refused to pay the statutory interest that accrued on the overdue benefits at two percent per month. Shady Grove filed this diversity suit in the Eastern District of New York to recover the unpaid statutory interest. Alleging that Allstate routinely refuses to pay interest on overdue benefits, Shady Grove sought relief on behalf of itself and a class of all others to whom Allstate owes interest. The individual claim was worth roughly $500, which fell far short of the amount-in-controversy requirement for individual suits under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 901(b), which precludes a suit to recover a penalty from proceeding as a class action, applies in diversity suits in federal court despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Concluding that statutory interest is a penalty under New York law, it held that § 901(b) prohibited the proposed class action.