Legal Opinion · Dissent

Klamath Irrigation District v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided July 16, 2008No. 2007-5115Published

1DissentGajarsa, Circuit Judge

Although the majority of the panel has requested a certification of three issues to the Oregon Supreme Court, I must respectfully dissent from such a request. We need not certify the questions because *1379of the unique procedural posture of this ease, and because the answers sought, in my judgment, are not required to decide the issues before this court. In particular, I disagree with the proposition that the effect of the 1905 Statute is a critical question with respect to the matter of certification vel non. In my judgment, the effect of the 1905 Statute is determinative as to the relative…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc. And Wci Outdoor Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
  2. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  3. Hannigan v. HintonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API