 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Western Helicopter Services Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.5/14/1991
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON
SC No. S37702
1991.OR.41323 ; 811 P.2d 627; 311 Or. 361
May 14, 1991
WESTERN HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., AND EDWINA MARIE CRUSE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL LEROY CRUSE, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ROGERSON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, ROGERSON-HILLER CORPORATION, OMNECO, INC., EMBEE EP PLATING, ARDEN ENGINEERING AND BURBANK STEEL TREATING, INC., DEFENDANTS
On certified questions from United Stated District Court Order dated December 6, 1990. Honorable Helen J. Frye, United States District Judge. USDC Civil No. 87-1435-FR.
Lloyd B. Ericsson, Portland, attorney for plaintiffs.
James L. Hiller, Portland, attorney for defendants Rogerson Aircraft Corporation and Rogerson-Hiller Corporation.
Jonathan David Allred, Portland, attorney for Omneco, Inc.
John P. Ashworth, Portland, attorney for defendant Embee EP Plating.
Thomas M. Christ, Portland, attorney for Arden Engineering.
Richard M. Layne, Portland, attorney for Burbank Steel Treating, Inc.
Peterson, Chief Justice, and Carson, Gillette, Fadeley, Unis, and Graber, Justices.
Gillette
We are asked in this civil action to accept certification of two questions of law propounded by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon pursuant to ORS 28.200, which provides:
"The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court or the highest appellate court or the intermediate appellate court of any other state, when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceedings before it questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the intermediate appellate courts of this state."
For the reasons set out in Part II of this opinion, we decline to accept certification in this case.
I.
Although we have accepted and decided several cases involving certified questions since the enactment of Oregon's certification law, ORS 28.200 to 28.255, in 1983, we have not heretofore discussed the considerations that we use in deciding whether to accept certification. Our statute is taken from the Uniform Certified Questions of Law Act, which by 1990 had been adopted by statute or court rule (with some variations) in 29 jurisdictions. 12 Uniform Laws Annotated 49 (1975) and 18 (1990 supplement) (hereafter cited as "ULA"). ORS 28.250 directs that Oregon's certification law "shall be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it."
In this case, we decline, for the first time, to accept a question certified to us under the Act. We shall explain, first in general terms and then in terms applicable to the present case, the considerations that lead us to this denial. Our starting point is the statutory text.
A. Criteria for Certified Questions Under the Statute
ORS 28.200 provides that the decision whether to accept certification is committed to our discretion: "The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it * *
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|