Legal Opinion
Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 12, 2007No. 06-35630PublishedCited by 88 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
Today we reiterate the rule that when (1) a federal court is required to apply state law, and (2) there is no relevant precedent from the state’s highest court, but (3) there is relevant precedent from the state’s intermediate appellate court, the federal court must follow the state intermediate appellate court decision unless the federal court finds convincing evidence that the state’s supreme court likely would not follow it.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff Daniel Ryman was fired by Sears for excessive absences; at issue here is his absence from work on November 17, 2003. From…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vestar Development Ii, Llc, an Arizona Limited Liability v. General Dynamics Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Swirsky v. CareyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Yeager v. Providence Health System OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- Yeager v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM OREGONOregon Supreme Court · 2004
3Cited by88 opinions
- Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- Slatkin v. NeilsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Rafael Sandoval v. County of SonomaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Dennis Sharkey v. Eral O'NealCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.