Professional Documents
Culture Documents
302
48 S.Ct. 519
72 L.Ed. 891
McCOY
v.
SHAW, State Auditor of Oklahoma, et al.
No. 403.
Submitted April 9, 1928.
Decided May 21, 1928.
It is settled law that a judgment of a state court which is put upon a nonfederal
ground, independent of the federal question involved and broad enough to
sustain the judgment, cannot be reviewed by this court, unless the nonfederal
ground is so plainly unfounded that it may be regarded as essentially arbitrary
or a mere device to prevent the review of a decision upon the federal question.
Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93, 99, 28 S. Ct. 30 (52 L. Ed. 118); Vandalia
Railroad v. State of Indiana, 207 U. S. 359, 367, 28 S. Ct. 130 (52 L. Ed. 246);
Enterprise Irrig. Dist. v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164, 37 S. Ct. 318 (61 L. Ed.
644); Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22, 40 S. Ct. 419 (64 L. Ed. 751);
and cases therein cited.
3
Here the nonfederal ground upon which the Oklahoma court based its decisionnamely that under the Oklahoma statutes the petitioner had a plain, adequate
and exclusive remedy at law-was based on its earlier decision in Black v.
Geissler, 59 Okl. 335, 159 P. 1124. It is in harmony with the decisions of this
court relating to similar statutes of other states. Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S.
69, 75 (24 L. Ed. 610); Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591, 595, 11 S. Ct. 646 (35
L. Ed. 273); Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Koehne, 188 U. S. 681, 686, 23 S. Ct. 452 (47
L. Ed. 651); Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 39, 28 S. Ct. 7
(52 L. Ed. 78, 12 Ann. Cas. 757); Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Benedict, 229
U. S. 481, 487, 33 S. Ct. 942 (57 L. Ed. 1288); Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board
of Com'rs of Weld County, 247 U. S. 282, 285, 38 S. Ct. 510 (62 L. Ed. 1110).
And no intent to evade the federal question is indicated.