Legal Opinion
Rufino v. United States
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 24, 1987PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
In an exercise of this court’s discretion under section 500.17 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.17), we decline to accept the two questions* certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
We fully appreciate the value of the certification process, in saving "time, energy, and resources and helping to] build a cooperative judicial federalism” (Lehman Bros. v Schein, 416 US 386, 391), by allowing this court in a non-State action to declare the law of the State of New York (see,…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Lehman Brothers v. ScheinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hatahley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- McDougald v. GarberNew York Supreme Court · 1986
- Kidney v. Kolmar Laboratories, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
4Cited by7 opinions
- Anna Rufino, as Guardian Ad Litem of Neil Rufino, and Anna Rufino, Plaintiffs v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- McDougald v. GarberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Babigian v. WachtlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Oneida Indian Nation v. PiferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Nussbaum v. GibsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.