Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co., s. 81-1741
| Decision Date | 02 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81-1741,81-1770,s. 81-1741 |
| Citation | 670 F.2d 92 |
| Parties | Forrest DRUDGE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. OVERLAND PLAZAS CO., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Hoffman, Burke & Bozick, Chicago, Ill., David H. Vernon, argued, Iowa City, Iowa, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish & Becker, James A. Lorentzen, argued, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and HENLEY and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Forrest Drudge brought this diversity action for personal injuries against Overland Plazas Co. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 The accident sued on occurred in Tennessee, and the action would be barred if brought in Tennessee under that State's one-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-304. The District Court held that Iowa's borrowing statute, Iowa Code § 614.7, when considered along with the borrowing statute of Missouri, Overland's domicile, Mo.Ann.Stat. § 516.190, required it to apply the Tennessee statute of limitations, and therefore dismissed the action. --- F.Supp. ---- (S.D.Iowa 1981).
We affirm. The question in this case turns on the interpretation of the Iowa borrowing statute in somewhat unusual circumstances. Plaintiff complains that the District Court has adopted a species of the doctrine of renvoi, a doctrine, he says, that has never been approved by the Supreme Court of Iowa, which is, of course, the final arbiter of Iowa conflict-of-laws rules. For us it is sufficient that the District Court's construction of the state statute is not inconsistent with any opinion of the Supreme Court of Iowa, that that court has never disapproved the doctrine of renvoi, and that such precedents as exist in Iowa seem, for reasons ably set out by the District Court, to point towards application of the Tennessee limitations period in this case. We agree both with the result and with the reasoning of the District Court's opinion.
This disposition of Drudge's appeal makes it unnecessary to deal with Overland's cross-appeal from the denial of its alternative motion for transfer of venue.
Affirmed.
1 The Hon. W. C. Stuart, Chief Judge.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grove v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 4-97-CV-90224.
...F.Supp. 210, 212 (S.D.Iowa 1981) (applying Iowa limitations law, including Iowa's borrowing statute, in a diversity action), aff'd, 670 F.2d 92 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, regardless of whether the Court found Iowa or Florida substantive law applicable to this action, Iowa law must be used for th......
-
Employers Reinsurance v. Jefferson Pilot Financial
...borrowing statute where Missouri was defendant's principal place of business and thus its residence under Iowa law), aff'd, 670 F.2d 92 (8th Cir.1982); but see LeBlanc v. G.D. Searle & Co., 178 Ill.App.3d 236, 127 Ill.Dec. 423, 533 N.E.2d 41, 42 (1988) (under Illinois borrowing statute, pla......
-
White for White v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., C88-3111.
...185 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1971); Fuerste v. Bemis, 156 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1968); see also Wayne, 730 F.2d at 399-400; Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co., 670 F.2d 92 (8th Cir.1982); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 145 & comment e (1971). Furthermore, in light of Iowa's conflict of law ru......
-
LeBlanc v. G.D. Searle & Co.
...F.2d 785; Allegaert v. Warren (S.D.N.Y.1979), 480 F.Supp. 817; Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co. (S.D.Ia.1981), 531 F.Supp. 210, aff'd (8th Cir.1982), 670 F.2d 92.) Plaintiffs also adopt the "common sense arguments" advanced by the trial judge in his opinion; i.e., that in light of the fact tha......