Gibson v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

Background\n\nA Texas resident sued an oil company incorporated in Delaware for injuries he says the company caused. The case was tried in federal court because the parties were citizens of different States. A jury found for the injured person, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and entered judgment for the company. The injured person then asked this Court to review that reversal. The dissent described this as an ordinary local personal-injury suit like hundreds of others filed in Texas state courts.\n\nReasoning\n\nThe central question was whether the appellate court was correct in applying Texas law and taking the case away from the jury. The Court issued a short per curiam order: it granted review, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and reinstated the District Court’s judgment for the plaintiff. The per curiam did not include an extended opinion explaining its detailed reasoning. Two Justices would have denied review.\n\nReal world impact\n\nFor now, the jury’s verdict for the injured person is restored in this case. Because the Court issued a brief order rather than a full opinion, the ruling does not announce a broad new rule about how state law should be applied in other diversity cases. The dissent warns that taking such local disputes may encourage more petitions and burden the Court.\n\nDissents or concurrances\n\nJustice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented, arguing the Court should not hear routine state-law disputes brought only because the parties are from different States and that such review frustrates the role of the Courts of Appeals.\n\n