Delahanty v. Hinckley, 87-7055
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Before MIKVA, EDWARDS and STARR; MIKVA; STARR |
| Citation | 845 F.2d 1069,269 U.S. App. D.C. 324 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 11,781 Thomas K. DELAHANTY, et al., Appellants, v. John W. HINCKLEY, Jr., et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 87-7055,87-7055 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1988 |
Page 1069
v.
John W. HINCKLEY, Jr., et al.
District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided April 29, 1988.
Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., with whom Robert Cadeaux and James W. Taglieri, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Frank G. Jones, with whom Peter A. White, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before MIKVA, EDWARDS and STARR, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MIKVA.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
MIKVA, Circuit Judge:
On February 19, 1988, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in Thomas K. Delahanty, et al. v. John W. Hinckley, et al., No. 87-7055. It appears from the briefs and the oral argument that resolution of a question of District of Columbia ("the District") law is necessary to the decision in this appeal. We are asked to determine whether the District's courts wish to embrace a novel tort doctrine that, so far as we know, has not been presented to them and was only recently recognized in the neighboring state of Maryland.
A federal court sitting in diversity should normally decline to speculate on such a question of local doctrine. "Federal judges are disinclined to make bold departures in areas of law that we have no responsibility for developing." Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A., 772 F.2d 1358, 1370 (7th Cir.1985). See also Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 494 F.2d 345, 347 (9th Cir.1974) (describing as "doubtful" the "privilege of 'first guessing' what the California courts might do" on a new legal issue). In view of the District's recent adoption of a certification statute, however, we have the option of ascertaining the local court's own view of unresolved legal questions. See D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 11-723 (Supp.1987). We conclude that this jurisdiction's own court should have an opportunity to determine whether the District follows the law of Maryland on the question described below.
The facts relevant to the issue certified are as follows. Thomas Delahanty is a District of Columbia policeman who was shot by John Hinckley, during the latter's attempted assassination of President Reagan. Delahanty and his wife sued the manufacturer and distributor of the gun Hinckley used: an inexpensive .22 caliber pistol with a two-inch barrel, known generically as a "Saturday Night Special." The suit sought recovery on various theories of negligence and strict liability. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, the Maryland Court of Appeals--responding to the certification of a question by the United States District Court in Maryland--issued its opinion in Kelley v. R.G. Industries, 304 Md.
Page 1071
124, 497 A.2d 1143 (1985). The Kelley court concluded that "it is entirely consistent with public policy to hold the manufacturers and marketers of Saturday Night Special handguns strictly liable to innocent persons who suffer gunshot injuries from the criminal use of their products." Id. 497 A.2d at 1159.Following the Maryland decision, Delahanty relied on Kelley's new cause of action to recover against the manufacturer of Hinckley's gun. However, in July 1986, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all of Delahanty's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). With respect to the claims based on Kelley, the trial judge specifically found "no corresponding theory in the District of Columbia and conclude[d] that such a theory would not be adopted in this jurisdiction." Thomas K. Delahanty, et al. v. John W. Hinckley, et al., Nos. 82-409 et al., memorandum op. at 22 (D.D.C. July 2, 1986).
In Kelley, Maryland's high court acknowledged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Dep't of Justice, 17-CV-3329 (RRM) (RLM)
...the records; [and] [2] the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit." Id. at 218 (quoting Tax Analysts , 845 F.2d at 1069 ). Finally, it is the Agencies’ burden to establish that these records are not "agency records." See Tax Analysts , 492 U.S. at 142 n.3, 109......
-
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, No. CIV.A. 01-0981(PLF).
...the agency has actual possession of a document that had been created elsewhere, see Tax Analysts v. United States Department of Justice, 845 F.2d at 1069, and those in which information created at the behest of the agency was neither created by the agency nor stored at the agency. See Burka......
-
Doyle v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 17 Civ. 2542 (KPF)
...and [iv] the degree to which the document was integrated into the agency's record system or files. Id. (quoting Tax Analysts I , 845 F.2d at 1069 ).Applying these factors produced an equivocal result. The first factor weighed in the Secret Service's favor in light of the 2006 MOU, which as ......
-
Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., No. 93-5083
...Court of Appeals. See, e.g., National Union Fire Ins. v. Riggs Nat'l Bank, 5 F.3d 554, 557 (D.C.Cir.1993); Delahanty v. Hinckley, 845 F.2d 1069, 1070 17 Appellants do not maintain that the FTC Holder Rule should be implied into their loan contracts as a matter of federal common law. In fact......
-
Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., 93-5083
...Court of Appeals. See, e.g., National Union Fire Ins. v. Riggs Nat'l Bank, 5 F.3d 554, 557 (D.C.Cir.1993); Delahanty v. Hinckley, 845 F.2d 1069, 1070 17 Appellants do not maintain that the FTC Holder Rule should be implied into their loan contracts as a matter of federal common law. In fact......
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, CIV.A. 01-0981(PLF).
-
Cox v. Dep't of Justice
...the records; [and] [2] the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit." Id. at 218 (quoting Tax Analysts , 845 F.2d at 1069 ). Finally, it is the Agencies’ burden to establish that these records are not "agency records." See Tax Analysts , 492 U.S. at 142 n.3, 109......
-
Doyle v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 17 Civ. 2542 (KPF)
...and [iv] the degree to which the document was integrated into the agency's record system or files. Id. (quoting Tax Analysts I , 845 F.2d at 1069 ).Applying these factors produced an equivocal result. The first factor weighed in the Secret Service's favor in light of the 2006 MOU, which as ......