Bravo v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1DissentWilson, Circuit Judge
To the extent that the majority concludes that we are bound by the substan*1327tive law of the State of Florida in consideration of this diversity case, pursuant to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), I agree. I also have no quarrel with the general principle that we are bound by decisions of Florida intermediate state appellate courts unless there is persuasive evidence that the Florida Supreme Court would rule otherwise. See King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of Am., 333 U.S. 153, 158, 68 S.Ct. 488, 491, 92 L.Ed. 608 (1948). The problem here…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Loftin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
- Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- Bravo v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.