John Pittman and Iddo Pittman, Jr. v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal
This text of 834 F.2d 1171 (John Pittman and Iddo Pittman, Jr. v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal) 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.
Opinion
The district court’s order and reasons in this case, 662 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.La.1987), were sensitive to the court’s role as an Erie court. Finding no support in the Louisiana law for the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery in tort or in contract, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs’ appellate brief cites no new authority, but simply urges us as a matter of public policy to place the responsibility for the plaintiffs’ loss on The Wall Street Journal. Even if we agreed with the plaintiffs’ policy arguments, which we do not, we are not free to fashion new theories of recovery under Louisiana law.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of that court’s opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
834 F.2d 1171, 14 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2384, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16825, 1987 WL 21493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-pittman-and-iddo-pittman-jr-v-dow-jones-company-inc-dba-the-ca5-1987.