From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Frozen Food Exp., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 4, 1979
592 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1979)

Summary

holding that we follow prior panel decisions "absent a subsequent state court decision or statutory amendment which makes this Court's decision clearly wrong"

Summary of this case from Whitten v. Clarke

Opinion

No. 78-1885. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

April 2, 1979. Rehearing Denied May 4, 1979.

James L. Davis, Kenneth N. Simmons, Many, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Mayer, Smith Roberts, Alex F. Smith, Jr., Mark A. Goodwin, Shreveport, La., for Frozen Food Express and Excalibur Ins. Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.



In this Louisiana wrongful death action removed to the federal courts because of diversity, we affirm on the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the opinion of the district court.

Plaintiffs suggest we certify to the Louisiana Supreme Court the district court's conclusion that Louisiana law will impute the contributory negligence of a minor to his parents pursuant to Rule 12 of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Regardless of any ambiguity the plaintiffs may find in Louisiana cases to justify such a certification, there is no ambiguity as to this Court's view of Louisiana law because the legal issue has been squarely resolved against plaintiffs' precise arguments by two recent Fifth Circuit decisions. Moczygemba v. Danos Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 561 F.2d 1149, 1154 (5th Cir. 1977); Dickerson v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 553 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1977). Once a panel of this Court has settled on the state law to be applied in a diversity case, the precedent should be followed by other panels without regard to any alleged existing confusion in state law, absent a subsequent state court decision or statutory amendment which makes this Court's decision clearly wrong.

We deny plaintiffs' request to certify to the state court for two reasons: first, the analysis in our prior decisions appears to us to be correct; and second, this panel of the Court is bound by the decisions of prior panels. Puckett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 522 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1975).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Lee v. Frozen Food Exp., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 4, 1979
592 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1979)

holding that we follow prior panel decisions "absent a subsequent state court decision or statutory amendment which makes this Court's decision clearly wrong"

Summary of this case from Whitten v. Clarke

In Lee v. Frozen Food Express, Inc., 592 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1979), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a similar problem regarding a requested certification of a question of Louisiana state law which had been previously decided by the 5th Circuit Court but was not settled under Louisiana state law.

Summary of this case from In re Jones
Case details for

Lee v. Frozen Food Exp., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HOY LEE AND SHIRLEY HILDERBRAND LEE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 4, 1979

Citations

592 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1979)

Citing Cases

Commodore Plaza Condo. Ass'n v. Evanston Ins. Co.

Once the Eleventh Circuit has made its educated guess, it must be followed absent a subsequent state court…

Rutherford v. Clmba. Gas

See Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301, 309-10 (6th Cir. 2001). A number of circuits have reached a…