Guillermo G. Santillana v. Herbert M. Williams

Fifth Circuit

Guillermo G. Santillana v. Herbert M. Williams

599 F.2d 634, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 1979

Docket78-3829

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 599 F.2d 634 (Guillermo G. Santillana v. Herbert M. Williams) 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

Guillermo G. Santillana v. Herbert M. Williams, 599 F.2d 634, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12910 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity case decided under Texas substantive law, a carefully instructed jury found that defendant had knowingly made a false statement to the sheriff in violation of a state statute, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.08, which resulted in the incarceration of plaintiff, who was almost immediately released when the charges were dismissed. It assessed $10,000 against defendant.

The controlling issue on appeal is whether there is such a cause of action in Texas. Plaintiff has cited no cases which hold there is such a cause of action. Defendant, asserting that in Texas there is no civil cause of action for violation of Tex.Penal Code * Ann. § 37.08, absent all the elements of malicious prosecution, has cited no cases supporting his position. The trial judge denied two motions for directed verdict and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict against the argument that plaintiff *635 had not proven all of the elements of malicious prosecution, without which, defendant argued, there is no civil cause of action for violation of the state statute.

In the absence of controlling state authority, the interpretation of state law by a local federal trial judge must be accorded great weight. 1A Moore’s Federal Practice 1309[2] at 3125-3129 (2d ed. 1965); Wren v. New York Life Insurance Co., 493 F.2d 839, 841 (5th Cir. 1974); Insurance Co. of North America v. English, 395 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 1968). See also Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 204, 76 S.Ct. 273, 100 L.Ed. 199 (1956).

The burden of appellant on appeal is to persuade the appellate court that the trial judge committed an error of law. See Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 370, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969); Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Gilliland Refining Co., 103 F.2d 186, 187 (5th Cir. 1939). We are not so persuaded in this case.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity case decided under Texas substantive law, a carefully instructed jury found that defendant had knowingly made a false statement to the sheriff in violation of a state statute, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 37.08, which resulted in the incarceration of plaintiff, who was almost immediately released when the charges were dismissed. It assessed $10,000 against defendant.

The controlling issue on appeal is whether there is such a cause of action in Texas. Plaintiff has cited no cases which hold there is such a cause of action. Defendant, asserting that in Texas there is no civil cause of action for violation of Tex.Penal Code * Ann. § 37.08, absent all the elements of malicious prosecution, has cited no cases supporting his position. The trial judge denied two motions for directed verdict and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict against the argument that plaintiff *635 had not proven all of the elements of malicious prosecution, without which, defendant argued, there is no civil cause of action for violation of the state statute.

In the absence of controlling state authority, the interpretation of state law by a local federal trial judge must be accorded great weight. 1A Moore’s Federal Practice 1309[2] at 3125-3129 (2d ed. 1965); Wren v. New York Life Insurance Co., 493 F.2d 839, 841 (5th Cir. 1974); Insurance Co. of North America v. English, 395 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 1968). See also Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 204, 76 S.Ct. 273, 100 L.Ed. 199 (1956).

The burden of appellant on appeal is to persuade the appellate court that the trial judge committed an error of law. See Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 370, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969); Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Gilliland Refining Co., 103 F.2d 186, 187 (5th Cir. 1939). We are not so persuaded in this case.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 F.2d 634, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillermo-g-santillana-v-herbert-m-williams-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack