John Pittman and Iddo Pittman, Jr. v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal
John PITTMAN and Iddo Pittman, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.