-
945 F.2d 102·
5th Cir.·
1991-10-22
The court held that Louisiana law does not apply when no Louisiana residents are involved in the dispute, and the insurance policy was issued out-of-state to out-of-state residents for an out-of-state car.
-
936 F.2d 1320·
D.C. Cir.·
1991-06-28
The court held that the appellees' damages were not proximately caused by the government's negligence, reversing the district court's judgment.
-
909 F.2d 183·
6th Cir.·
1990-07-27
The court held that Michigan courts would apply Indiana law to determine vehicle ownership and vicarious liability, and under Indiana law, the seller was not liable.
-
900 F.2d 83·
6th Cir.·
1990-04-09
A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, and under Michigan's presumptive lex fori rule, Michigan law applies unless the foreign state has a rational interest in displacing it.
-
891 F.2d 738·
9th Cir.·
1989-12-11
The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding medical malpractice and that the damage award was not excessive under Alaska law.
-
889 F.2d 1363·
4th Cir.·
1989-11-24
The court held that the appellant waived his right to appeal issues by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate's report, as required by the Magistrate's Act and Rule 72.
-
530 So. 2d 516·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1988-09-08
Appellants sued their insurer GEICO for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and prejudgment interest following their daughter's death in a car accident. The court held that North Carolina law applies to both the coverage question and the prejudgment interest question under the doctr
-
754 F.2d 1568·
11th Cir.·
1985-02-27
The court held that the Tennessee statute of limitations, which requires suits against tortfeasors to be filed within one year of injury, does not bar a claim filed after one year when the cause of action arose in Georgia and is governed by Georgia's two-year statute of limitatio
-
752 F.2d 1317·
9th Cir.·
1984-11-05
The court held that the district court erred in applying Arizona law to determine statutory employer immunity; Nevada law applies to the wrongful death action.
-
587 F. Supp. 460·
S.D. Fla.·
1984-06-28
A foreign plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to less deference, and dismissal is appropriate if an adequate remedy exists elsewhere.
-
694 F.2d 1050·
6th Cir.·
1982-12-07
The court held that Michigan's conflict of laws rules require the application of Ontario law, which bars GM's claims for contribution or indemnity.
-
680 F.2d 427·
5th Cir.·
1982-07-16
The court held that Texas law applied because Texas had the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties, despite the accident's proximity to the state line.
-
540 F. Supp. 488·
S.D. Fla.·
1982-05-26
The court held that Florida law applies to vicarious liability due to its 'dangerous instrumentality rule' and significant relationship to the parties and events, and denied summary judgment due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding aircraft ownership.
-
477 F.2d 454·
3d Cir.·
1973-04-25
The court held that Delaware law would apply the law of the marital domicile in an alienation of affections case.
-
450 F.2d 1146·
1st Cir.·
1971-11-05
The court held that Massachusetts substantive law applied to the landowner's duty of care, and under that law, the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court also found the third-party claim moot.
-
211 So. 2d 868·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1968-05-31
The court held that Florida's statute of limitations for causes of action arising out of state applies, requiring adherence to the Georgia statute of limitations where the accident occurred.
-
331 F.2d 476·
2d Cir.·
1964-05-01
The court held that the defendant's statements in an affidavit were absolutely privileged because they were relevant to a judicial proceeding and made with probable cause.
-
198 F.2d 359·
4th Cir.·
1952-07-24
The court held that the Private Act only waived sovereign immunity, allowing a determination of liability under applicable law, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury under Alabama law.