Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

592 F.2d 271

Docket No. 78-1885

Lee v. Frozen Food Express, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 2, 1979.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1979.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1979-04-02

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[A] prior panel decision 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 [prior] decision clearly wrong.”

quoted by 7 later decisions, including Holley v. Town of Camp Hill, Jones v. Production Services, Inc. (In Re Jones)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Puckett v. Commissioner · Mrs. Gwendolyn L. Moczygemba, Miss Vickie Leonard v. Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., Gulf Oil Corporation

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1979-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Chemetron Corporation v. Business Funds, Inc. (1982), Kansa Reinsurance Company Ltd v. Congressional Mortgage Corporation of Texas United Postal Savings & Loan Assn (1994)

26 federal appellate ·

150197919801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2*272James L. Davis, Kenneth N. Simmons, Many, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶3Mayer, Smith & Roberts, Alex F. Smith, Jr., Mark A. Goodwin, Shreveport, La., for Frozen Food Express and Excalibur Ins. Co.

¶4Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7In 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.

¶8Plaintiffs 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.

¶9Regardless 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.

¶10We 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).

¶11AFFIRMED.

/592/f2d/271 · .json · Public domain