Arthur Goldberg

“ But even if my analysis of the decisions below is erroneous and the Alabama law is not as clear as I conceive it to be, I would still not agree that it is appropriate to determine the ultimate constitutional issue. There is no doubt, as even the Court recognizes, that there exists here at least a lurking question of independent state law. Under such circumstances, the least that should be done is to vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court for clarification of its opinion as to the status of Alabama law. ”

“ The opinion of Judge Grooms, an experienced Alabama lawyer, makes it clear that he relied upon Alabama law in deciding that the original default judgment could be collaterally attacked. [2] The Court apparently does not dispute this. It, however, reads the opinions below as relying upon federal and not upon independent state law for the determination that the Alabama court was without subject matter jurisdiction to enter the default judgment. ”

“ But, as I have already noted, petitioner, who originally sued under both Alabama's Workmen's Compensation Act and common law, dismissed those counts and based his action solely on the Georgia Workmen's Compensation Act. The federal issue raised by respondent is whether, consistently with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a State may enforce in its courts the liability claims created by another State in violation of that other State's fixed policy to have those claims enforced only by an administrative board. ”