Lafromboise v. Leavitt (2006)

LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792, 795 (8th Cir.2006).

“First, the plain meaning of the statute—‘the law of the place’—indicates that Congress contemplated a single source of governing law.” LaFromboise, 439 F.3d at 794 (emphases in original).

In this FTCA case, just as in diversity cases, the Court’s job is to apply Arkansas law as set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court.236 And where the Arkansas Supreme Court has not yet clearly resolved an issue, this Court’s job is to make an educated prediction as to what the Arkansas Supreme Court would do were it faced with the issue.237 As disconcerting as it might be to me, all the normal clues that usually aid federal courts in this educated prediction 232 See supra Fin…

LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792, 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2006).

LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792, 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2006).

The Eighth Circuit acknowledged that it, “in precisely the circumstances at issue here, has applied the law of the State to acts occurring on tribal lands within a State, although the choice-of-law question apparently was not raised or discussed in these cases.” Id. at 794.

Because these events occurred in Minnesota, Minnesota’s law defines the “law of the place.” LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792, 795 (8th Cir.2006).

See LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2006).

See LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792 , 795 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that this rule remains applicable in the FTCA context generally even though Dolan suspends its application when “interpreting the scope of exceptions to the government’s waiver of immunity under the FTCA”).10 Therefore, we must resolve any doubts about the scope of the law enforcement proviso in favor of the United States.

See LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792 , 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (applying North Dakota statute); Weasel v. St.

See LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792 , 796 (8th Cir.2006).

See LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792 , 796 (8th Cir.2006).