Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 (1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 (1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
512 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 48 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center (texapp, 2015-08-24) · Strongest negative: United States v. Steele (ca3, 1982-06-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#5 28 U. S. C. § 1258 cited 2× in this case · 42 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
examined Cited "but see" ca3 1982 (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: but see · confidence high
Agency v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding that Puerto Rico is a state under various federal statutes); but see Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 42 n.1, 91 S.Ct. 156 , 157 n.1, 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (per curiam) (Puerto Rican statutes are not state statutes within 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (2), which authorizes appeals to the Supreme Court) The decisions of the district court and this court in United States v. Baker, 241 F.Supp. 272 (M.D.Pa.1965), aff'd, 364 F.2d 107 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 986 , 87 S.Ct. 596 , 17 L.Ed.2d 448 (1966), on which appellants rel…
examined Cited "but see" United States v. Steele (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: but see · confidence high
Agency v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding that Puerto Rico is a state under various federal statutes); but see Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 42 n.1, 91 S.Ct. 156 , 157 n.1, 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (per curiam) (Puerto Rican statutes are not state statutes within 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (2), which authorizes appeals to the Supreme Court).
examined Cited "but see" Rodriguez-Rivera v. Maiz (3×)
D.P.R. · 1971 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts should abstain from interpreting and passing upon the validity of Commonwealth statutes, till the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had done so.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Consistent with “our practice of strict construction” of § 1254(2), Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 42, n. 1 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 157, n. 1 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (per curiam ), we believe that an appeal cannot lie where a court of appeals' judgment rests solely on the stipulated applicability of state law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico
prsupreme · 2001 · confidence medium
Así lo reconoció la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en el caso Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43-44 (1970), donde se ordenó a la Corte de Distrito que se abs-tuviera de resolver la constitucionalidad de una ley puer-torriqueña hasta tanto este Tribunal hubiere tenido la oportunidad de interpretar el estatuto.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance (2×)
SCOTUS · 1996 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Thibodaux, supra, at 28-30 (approving stay order); Fornaris v. Ridge *720 Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 44 (1970) (per curiam) (directing District Court to " hold its hand until the Puerto Rican Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled on the local law question in light of the federal claims" (footnote omitted)) (emphasis added); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U. S. 134, 135-136 (1962) (per curiam) ("Wise judicial administration in this case counsels that decision of the federal question be deferred until the potentially controlling statelaw issue is authoritatively put…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission
E.D. Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
The Court held in Reetz , for example, that the three-judge district court panel should have abstained because the Alaska fishing statute “might be so confined as not to have any constitutional infirmity.” Fornaris 400 U.S. at 43 , 91 S.Ct. at 157-58 (explaining Reetz ). 9 But the same cannot be said for the portion of Act 329 challenged by plaintiff here — that seven seats on the PPTNC are to be filled by “a member from each of the seven governing boards of public television station licensees serving the Commonwealth.” This language governing how PPTNC seats are to be filled is susc…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vocero de Puerto Rico v. Estado Libre Asociado
prsupreme · 1992 · confidence medium
En Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 42-43 (1970), expresó: “The relations of the federal courts to Puerto Rico have often raised delicate problems.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
Consistent with “our practice of strict construction” of §1254(2), Fomaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970) (per curiam), we believe that an appeal cannot lie where a court of appeals’ judgment rests solely on the stipulated applicability of state law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
In keeping with the policy that statutes authorizing appeals are to be strictly construed, Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 43 (1983); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970), we have consistently distinguished between those cases in which a state statute is expressly struck down on constitutional grounds and those in which an exercise of authority under state law is invalidated "without reference to the state statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n (2×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
We have previously emphasized that statutes authorizing appeals are to be strictly construed, Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970), and in light of that policy, we do not find that § 1254(2) extends to cover this case. 5 We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States ex rel. Gereau v. Henderson
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 , 668-69 n. 5, 94 S.Ct. 2080 , 2084 n. 5, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 , 460 n. 5 (1974); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43-44 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 157 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174, 177 (1970). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1974 · confidence medium
The District Court deemed it unnecessary to determine which Amendment applied to Puerto Rico, see Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 43-44 (1970), and we agree.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles H. Baldwin v. Robert G. Smith, as Warden of the Vermont State Prison, Windsor, Vermont (2×)
2d Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
J.); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43-44 (1970); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, 86-87 (1970); Harmon v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 534 (1965); City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.
examined Cited "see" Reliable Tractor, Inc. v. John Deere Construction & Forestry Co. (3×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 423 F.2d 563, 568 (1st Cir.1970), rev’d on other grounds 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (holding that a law converting a contractual relationship terminable by either party without cause into one which can be terminated only under certain conditions was a “change of great magnitude” that violated the Contracts Clause).
examined Cited "see" JMM Corp. v. District of Columbia (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 158 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (directing the district court to stay its decision regarding the constitutionality of a Puerto Rico law until the Puerto Rico Supreme Court was given an opportunity to construe it in a way that might avoid constitutional infirmity). 22 .
examined Cited "see" Garamendi v. Allstate Insurance (3×)
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U.S. 134 , 82 S.Ct. 676 , 7 L.Ed.2d 623 (1962); Clay v. Sun Ins.
examined Cited "see" Floyd v. Thornburg (3×)
W.D.N.C. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967). *760 None of the Plaintiffs in any of these actions have been indicted, arrested, or even threatened by a prosecutor.
examined Cited "see" Crow v. North Carolina (3×)
W.D.N.C. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Fomaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967).
examined Cited "see" Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp. (3×)
C.D. Cal. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (lower court should “hold its hand” on interpreting the “just cause” provision of the franchise law until the Puerto Rican Supreme Court addresses the issue).
discussed Cited "see" Eastern Fine Paper v. Garriga Trading Co., Inc. (2×)
Me. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 420 [ 84 S.Ct. 461, 467 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 ], 400 U.S. at 44 , 91 S.Ct. at 158 (footnote omitted).
examined Cited "see" Cohen v. Board of Education of East Ramapo Central School District (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
In cases in which state law or its application is ambiguous, the Supreme Court has approved a form of abstention first used in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 501 , 61 S.Ct. 643, 645 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), under which the federal court abstains pending state determination of questions of state law. “[Ojur abstention cases have dealt with unresolved questions of state law which only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe.” Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 438 , 91 S.Ct. 507, 511 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971); see Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41…
examined Cited "see" ca1 1979 (3×)
1st Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Company, 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Bonet v. Texas Company, 308 U.S. 463, 470-71 , 60 S.Ct. 349 , 84 L.Ed. 401 (1940); Bonet v. Yabucoa Sugar Company, 306 U.S. 505, 510 , 59 S.Ct. 626 , 83 L.Ed. 946 (1939); Alcoa Steamship Company v. Perez Rodriguez, 376 F.2d at 39 .
examined Cited "see" Garcia v. Friesecke (3×)
1st Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Company, 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Bonet v. Texas Company, 308 U.S. 463, 470-71 , 60 S.Ct. 349 , 84 L.Ed. 401 (1940); Bonet v. Yabucoa Sugar Company, 306 U.S. 505, 510 , 59 S.Ct. 626 , 83 L.Ed. 946 (1939); Alcoa Steamship Company v. Perez Rodriguez, 376 F.2d at 39 .
examined Cited "see" Matter of Daben Corp. (3×)
D.P.R. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Too] Co., 400 U.S. 41, 42 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see" William C. Cornitius, Inc. v. Wheeler (3×)
Or. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 423 F2d 563 (1st Cir), vacated on other grounds, 400 US 41 , 91 S Ct 156 , 27 L Ed 2d 174 (1970); Globe Liquor Co. v. Four Roses Distillers Company, 281 A2d 19 (Del Super Ct), cert. denied, 404 US 873 , 92 S Ct 103 , 30 L Ed 2d 117 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Guest v. Fitzpatrick (6×)
E.D. Pa. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 423 F.2d 563, 566-67 (1st Cir. 1970), rev’d on other grounds, 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Vazquez v. Ferre (3×)
D.N.J. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 42-43 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see" Delaware River Port Authority v. Tiemann (3×)
D.N.J. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 423 F.2d 563, 566-67 (1st Cir.), rev’d *1139 per curiam, on other grounds, 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) ; Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268 , 278 n. 31, 89 S.Ct. (1969) ; of.
discussed Cited "see" Jerry v. Demoss and J & B Corporation v. Kelly Services, Inc. (2×)
1st Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See England v. *1015 Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 420 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440” 400 U.S. at 44 , 91 S.Ct. at 158 . [Footnote omitted.] In the case now before us, no constitutional issue is presented by the merits or by the requests for temporary relief.
examined Cited "see" Fisher & Porter De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. ITT Hammel-Dahl/Conoflow (3×)
D.P.R. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), and this Court’s General Order of May 30, 1973, setting for disposition all Law 75 cases affected by the Commonwealth Supreme Court’s ruling. .
examined Cited "see" Afa Distributing Co., Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Company (3×)
4th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Fornais v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82 , 90 S.Ct. 788 , 25 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970).
examined Cited "see" Luther Williams v. Missouri Department of Corrections (3×)
8th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) and Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82 , 90 S.Ct. 788 , 25 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970) in employing abstention, which is distinct from but akin to requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
examined Cited "see" International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp. (3×)
D. Haw. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 42-43 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970). 243 .
examined Cited "see" Dimery v. Department of Social Serv. of State of Iowa (3×)
S.D. Iowa · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see" Vivian Warren v. Government National Mortgage Association (3×)
8th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1971).
cited Cited "see" Connell v. Higginbotham
SCOTUS · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 43-44 ; Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, 85-87 ; Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 498-501 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dutra v. Trustees of Boston University
1st Cir. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 730 (1984)); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 267-68 (1994) (stating that "[r]etroactivity provisions often serve entirely benign and legitimate purposes").2 As to any Contract Clause claim, "[w]e Although we are not bound by the SJC's interpretation of 2 the federal Due Process Clause, both parties brief the due process - 9 - need not deal with a constitutional prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts, because the due process clause of the federal constitution provides essentially the same restraint so far as retrospectivity is con…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson
SCOTUS · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
This is also consistent with our cases holding that “statutes authorizing appeals are to be strictly construed.” Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 43 (1983); see also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Suarez Cestero v. Pagan Rosa (3×)
D.P.R. · 1998 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 28-30 , 79 S.Ct. 1070 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1959) (upholding district court’s decision to stay action) and Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (directing district court to “hold its hand” until the Puerto Rico Supreme Court authoritatively ruled on local question of law) with Allegheny County v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188, 196 , 79 S.Ct. 1060 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959) (reversing district court’s dismissal on abstention principles).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Todd v. DSN Dealer Service Network, Inc. (3×)
D. Kan. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fomaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 43-44 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 157-58 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (abstention to avoid adjudication of constitutional question appropriate in a case involving request for money damages); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 28 , 79 S.Ct. 1070, 1072-73 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1959) (abstention appropriate in eminent domain case).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Corporacion Insular De Seguros v. Garcia (3×)
D.P.R. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 158 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 , 94 S.Ct. 2080 , 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974) (stressing the doctrine of abstention regarding constitutional challenge to Puerto Rico forfeiture statute).
examined Cited "see, e.g." His Excellency, Vincente Cuesnongle, O.P. v. Hector R. Ramos, Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (6×)
1st Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 156, 158 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970). 47 We would hope that the distinction between strict statutory construction and constitutional analysis can be maintained so that as wide a field as possible may be kept open for the certification of questions of unclear Puerto Rico statutory law.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Brandenburg v. First Maryland Savings & Loan, Inc. (3×)
D. Maryland · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U.S. 134 , 82 S.Ct. 676 , 7 L.Ed.2d 623 (1962).
examined Cited "see, e.g." In Re Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (3×)
1st Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc. v. Silva Recio (3×)
D.P.R. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Rogoski v. Hammond (5×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 27 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Chavez v. Campbell (3×)
D. Ariz. · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S.Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Raymond M. Hill v. Victoria County Drainage District No. 3 (3×)
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 1970, 400 U.S. 41 , 91 S. Ct. 156 , 27 L.Ed.2d 174 ; Reetz v. Bozanich, supra 397 U.S. at 85-87 , 90 S.Ct. 788 ; England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 1964, 375 U.S. 411 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 .
FORNARIS
v.
RIDGE TOOL CO. Et Al.
541.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 23, 1970.
400 U.S. 41
Per Curiam.
Cited by 180 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

In 1964 by Act No. 75, the Legislature of Puerto Rico enacted the Dealer’s Contract Law which in effect provides that a Puerto Rican dealer’s contract with a manufacturer, regardless of any provisions for termination, is renewable indefinitely at the option of the local dealer unless the manufacturer has “just cause” to terminate. Section 1 (d) defines “just cause” as “nonperformance of any of the essential obligations of the dealer’s contract, on the part of the dealer, or any action or omission on his part that adversely and substantially affects the interests of the principal or grantor in promoting the' marketing or distribution of the merchandise or service.” If a manufacturer terminates for any other reason he is liable for substantial damages.

This cause was brought by a dealer in a Puerto Rican court for damages for breach of his distributorship contract against Ridge Tool Co., an appellee. It was[*42] removed to the Federal District Court on the basig of diversity of citizenship. That court denied the motion to'dismiss which claimed that the Dealer's Contract Law upon which the complaint was based was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals allowed an interlocutory appeal and held the Dealer’s Contract Law unconstitutional. 423 F. 2d 563. [1]

The relations of the federal courts to Puerto Rico have often raised delicate problems. It is a Spanish-speaking Commonwealth with a set of laws still impregnated with the Spanish tradition. . Federal, courts, reversing Puerto[*43] Rican courts, were inclined to construe Puerto Rican laws in the Anglo-Saxon tradition which often left little room for the overtones of Spanish culture. Out of that experience grew a pronouncement by this Court that a Puerto Rican coürt should hot be overruled on its construction of local law unless it" cbiild be said to be “inescapably wrong.” See Bonet v. Texas Co., 308 U. S. 463, 471.

The- question presented here is akin to that question, for we deal with a rather vague Puerto Rican law that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has not authoritatively -construed. [2] Only last Term in Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, we held that a three-judge federal court should not have proceeded to strike down an Alaska law which, if construed by the Alaska Supreme Court, might be so confined as not to have any constitutional infirmity. We said, “A state court decision here . . . could conceivably •avoid any decision under the Fourteenth Amendment and would avoid any possible irritant in the federal-state relationship.” Id., at 86-87.

In this cause the Court of Appeals held that “just cause” placed substantial liability on a. manufacturer who had contracts that he could have terminated without liability prior to the new statute. This retrospective impact, the court held, violated “the due process clause of the federal constitution” — without saying whether[*44] the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment was involved. [3] 423 F. 2d, at 566-567.

Whether the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico would give the same broad sweep to “just cause” as did the Court of Appeals is something we do not know. It is conceivable that “just cause” might be judicially confined to a more narrow ambit which would avoid all constitutional questions. We therefore reverse and direct the Court of Appeals to remand the cases to the District Court with instructions to hold its hand until the Puerto Rican Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled on the local law question [4] in light of - the federal claims. See England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 420.

It is so ordered.

1

Appellants invoked 28 U. S. G. § 1254 (2) as the authority for these appeals. That provision provides that a judgment in the Court of Appeals may be.brought here “[b]y appeal by a party relying on a State statute held by k court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution . . . But a Puerto Rican statute is not a “State statute” within § 1254 (2). (Emphasis supplied.} It is true that statutes enacted in 1961 require that this Court treat the Puerto Rican courts as the equivalent of state courts for purposes of -appeal and certiorari. It is expressly provided in 75 Stat. 417, 28 U. S. C. § 1258, that “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” may be reviewed by this Court by appeal, or by.writ of certi-orari, in the situations where that route is available for review of the judgments of the highest courts of the States. Significantly, however, no parallel provision was added to § 1254 (2) to permit appeals here from the courts of appeals by a party relying on a Puerto Rican statute. Whether the omission was by accident or by design, our practice of strict construction of statutes authorizing appeals dictates thatj we not give an expansive interpretation to the word “State.” We see no merit in the argument that we have already done so in our Rule 61 defining “state court” to include the Puerto Rican Supreme Court and “law and statutes of a state” to include “the law and statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” That rule was adopted only to implement 28 U. S. C. § 1258 dealing with review by appeal or certiorari of final judgments of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. We therefore hold that the appeals are improper and they are dismissed, and accordingly we treat the jurisdictional statements as-petitions for writs of certiorari and grant them on that basis. 28 U. S..C. § 2103; El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497, 501-503.

2

In McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Superior Court, decided March 17, 1970, the Supreme Court referred briefly to the “just cause” provision in the Act:

“It is apparent from the pleadings that the cancellation of the contract in this case ‘due to changes .we are now making in our sales representation throughout the world’ is cause to cancel it, since in the contract it was agreed that it could be cancelled by 30 days’ written notice. But it is also clear that such cause or reason is not the ‘just cause’ which permits the cancellation of a-distributorship contract in accordance with’ the provisions of Law #75, supra.”'
3

Art. II, § 7, of the Constitution of Puerto Rico provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of his liberty or property without due process of law,” “life” being excluded because § 7 abolishes the death penalty. That Constitution was approved by Congress. See H. R. Rep. No. 1832, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2350, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 1720, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.

4

Under Puerto Rico’s laws its courts have broad powers “to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 32, c. 247, § 2991. That form of remedy reaches' a person “interested in” a contract or whose rights are “affected by any statute . . . contract or franchise.” • Id., § 2992.