Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02180/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02180-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Fl LED 

u~'!itctl Stlites Cm~rt ~f Ai:,pe•l 

'T',:-~-,tt.. r:,,~nut 

DWAINE WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NATIONAL FOOTBALL SCOUTING INC.; 

BLESTO, INC.; NATIONAL/BLESTO, 

SCOUTING COMBINES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAR 2 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2180 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 84-2650-T) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and GREENE,** District 

Judge. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants-appellees in this case. That judgment proceeded upon 

an analysis based upon assumption of the risk as a defense in the 

State of Louisiana. Six days after the district court filed its 

opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court abolished the use of 

assumption of the risk in Louisiana tort cases. Murray v. Ramada 

Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 (La. 1988). Neither party brought that 

case to the attention of the district court in post-judgment 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** Hon. J. Thomas Greene, Jr. United States District Court for 

the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2180 Document: 01019966727 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 1 
proceedings. Nor did the appellant, Dwaine Wright, raise the 

issue in this court in his docketing statement or briefs. The 

matter was eventually brought to this court's attention by way of 

a letter citing supplemental authority. 

We issued, then later withdrew, an opinion on appeal and 

directed the parties to address two questions: (a) whether the 

decision in Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232 (1944), requires 

this court to consider Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 

(La. 1988); and, (b) if so, the effect of Murray on the decision 

of the district court in this case. 

In response to the court's direction both parties acknowledge 

that Murray must be taken into account. The appellant argues 

further that because of Murray the case must be remanded for 

consideration by the district court in light of changed Louisiana 

law. The appellees, understandably, dispute that contention and 

argue that there are ample findings in the district court's 

decision to permit an affirmance based upon principle announced in 

Murray. 

We are reluctant to preempt the district court in this 

matter, and think it a more proper course to remand this case to 

the district court for reconsideration of its judgment in light of 

Murray. See Riley v. Brown & Root, Inc., No. 86-1935, slip op. at 

5-8 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 1990). 

Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the district 

court. 

-2-

Entered for the court: 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2180 Document: 01019966727 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 2 
UNITED STATES 

v. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

JEFFREY L. KINNEY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

ORDER 

Filed March 27, 1990 

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

) 

) 

) No. 90-3037 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

It is the order of the court that the Federal Public Defender for the 

District of Kansas is appointed as attorney of record to represent the 

appellant, Jeffrey L. Kinney. 

Entered for the Court 

By_---+---~------- Patrick Fisher 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 88-2180 Document: 01019966727 Date Filed: 03/27/1990 Page: 3