As a result of the Erie doctrine, federal courts are frequently required to apply state law in civil cases. Where state law is unclear or lacking in controlling precedent, federal courts have invoked the Pullman abstention doctrine to refuse to decide unsettled state law issues in order to leave resolution of these questions to the states. As an alternative to abstention, however, federal courts may certify questions of state law to the state courts.
The practice of certification originated in Florida, where the “Legislature, with rare foresight … dealt with the problem of authoritatively determining unresolved state law involved in federal litigation by a statute which permits a federal court to certify such a doubtful question of state law to the Supreme Court of Florida for its decision.” Clay v. Sun Ins. Office, 363 U.S. 207 (1960). With encouragement from the Supreme Court, and the subsequent enactment of a uniform law, certification has now become widely available throughout the United States.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
