Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cates v. Creamer

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided November 28, 2005No. 03-10404Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeMOSS, Circuit Judge

Insofar as the majority opinion upholds the district court’s grant of a new trial to Cates and, consequently, the verdict of the second trial, I concur. However, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion that holds that Florida law applies to the issue of vicarious liability-

This case is undisputedly based on diversity jurisdiction, and our responsibility in diversity cases is to determine what the substantive law of the forum state is, not what we think it should be. See Am. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 274 F.3d 319, 328 (5th Cir.2001); Boardman v. United Servs. Auto.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Primrose Operating Co. v. National American InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
  3. American National General Insurance v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2001
  4. Maurice Manshack and Cheri B. Manshack v. Southwestern Electric Power CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  5. Bartley v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1996

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API