A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. John Hans Graham and John Hans Graham and Associates

Fifth Circuit

A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. John Hans Graham and John Hans Graham and Associates

492 F.2d 797, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1974

Docket29887

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 492 F.2d 797 (A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. John Hans Graham and John Hans Graham and Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. John Hans Graham and John Hans Graham and Associates, 492 F.2d 797, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We previously certified the issues presented on this appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida for a resolution of the applicable and controlling state law in this diversity suit. See Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 443 F.2d 434 (5th Cir. 1971). In its opinion, the Florida Supreme Court definitively answered the issues presented. See Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So.2d 397 (Fla.1973). In light of that opinion, we vacate the order of the district court dismissing appellant’s complaint and remand with directions to that court to require the appellees to respond to the complaint. With respect to Count II of appellant’s complaint which asserted a cause of action as third-party beneficiary, a determination of the intent of the owner and the architect as evidenced by their contract will be necessary.

Vacated and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We previously certified the issues presented on this appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida for a resolution of the applicable and controlling state law in this diversity suit. See Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 443 F.2d 434 (5th Cir. 1971). In its opinion, the Florida Supreme Court definitively answered the issues presented. See Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So.2d 397 (Fla.1973). In light of that opinion, we vacate the order of the district court dismissing appellant’s complaint and remand with directions to that court to require the appellees to respond to the complaint. With respect to Count II of appellant’s complaint which asserted a cause of action as third-party beneficiary, a determination of the intent of the owner and the architect as evidenced by their contract will be necessary.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 F.2d 797, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-r-moyer-inc-v-john-hans-graham-and-john-hans-graham-and-associates-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack