Beverly Carroll, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Appellee-Defendant

Ninth Circuit

Beverly Carroll, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Appellee-Defendant

923 F.2d 752, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 587, 91 Daily Journal DAR 858, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 33751, 1990 WL 255003

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 18, 1991·No. 89-15178·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

ORDER

The certification order and dissent filed on December 17, 1990 is redesignated a published order.

ORDER

1. This Court certifies that resolution by the Arizona Supreme Court of the following question of law set forth in Paragraph 2 will be determinative of a significant substantial question of law in the above-captioned ease.

2. Under Arizona law, would a person who gratuitously undertook to lend money to a person who then relied on his offer of the loan be liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) and McCutchen v. Hill, 147 Ariz. 401, 710 P.2d 1056 (1985) if he negligently failed to make the loan, causing economic harm to the would-be borrower?

3. Counsel for the parties are Paul Carroll, Pro Se, 5205 West Thunderbird, # 1004, Glendale, Arizona 85306, (602) 938-6990 and Richard G. Patrick, Assistant United States Attorney, 230 North 1st Avenue, Room 4000, Phoenix, Arizona, 85025, (602) 261-3011.

4. No party to this certification process will be allowed to request attorney’s fees or any costs associated with this certification process.

5. This Order is effective fourteen (14) days after the date thereof.

6. The Order and six (6) certified copies shall be forwarded, under seal, to the Arizona Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court.

DATED this 17th day of December, 1990.

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

ORDER

The certification order and dissent filed on December 17, 1990 is redesignated a published order.

ORDER

1. This Court certifies that resolution by the Arizona Supreme Court of the following question of law set forth in Paragraph 2 will be determinative of a significant substantial question of law in the above-captioned ease.

2. Under Arizona law, would a person who gratuitously undertook to lend money to a person who then relied on his offer of the loan be liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) and McCutchen v. Hill, 147 Ariz. 401, 710 P.2d 1056 (1985) if he negligently failed to make the loan, causing economic harm to the would-be borrower?

3. Counsel for the parties are Paul Carroll, Pro Se, 5205 West Thunderbird, # 1004, Glendale, Arizona 85306, (602) 938-6990 and Richard G. Patrick, Assistant United States Attorney, 230 North 1st Avenue, Room 4000, Phoenix, Arizona, 85025, (602) 261-3011.

4. No party to this certification process will be allowed to request attorney’s fees or any costs associated with this certification process.

5. This Order is effective fourteen (14) days after the date thereof.

6. The Order and six (6) certified copies shall be forwarded, under seal, to the Arizona Supreme Court by the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court.

DATED this 17th day of December, 1990.

Beverly Carroll, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Appellee-Defendant, 923 F.2d 752, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 587, 91 Daily Journal DAR 858, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 33751, 1990 WL 255003 (9th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

923 F.2d 752 (Beverly Carroll, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Appellee-Defendant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related