Cardozo Law Review
Abstract
Part I of this Note examines the mistake made by the Tenth Circuit in Octagon Gas. It further discusses the related problem inherent in a district court's belief that it is bound by a circuit court's previous Erie decision in light of the recent Winter Panel decision. Part II demonstrates that, despite the doctrine of precedent, district courts are not invariably bound by the diversity decisions of their circuit courts under the modem Erie doctrine, and therefore, should independently determine the state issues before them. Part III returns to Winter Panel and examines how the District Court of Massachusetts should have decided the case. This Note concludes that district courts should not blindly adhere to circuit court Erie precedent, but rather, should weigh such a decision with all other evidence of how a state's highest court would decide an issue. The district court should then assess all available data and arrive at its own best prediction of state law.
Keywords
Commercial Law, Jurisdiction, Contracts, Commercial Code, Uniform Commercial Code
Disciplines
Commercial Law | Contracts | Jurisdiction | Law
Recommended Citation
Nikiforos Mathews,
Circuit Court Erie Errors and the District Court's Dilemma: From Roto-Lith and the Mirror Image Rule to Octagon Gas and Asset Securitization,
17
Cardozo L. Rev.
739
(1996).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol17/iss3/11
Included in
Commercial Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons