Opinion ID: 776312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: plaintiffs' motion to certify questions to the supreme court of texas

Text: 34 As an alternative to their urging this Court to reexamine Sanchez, the Plaintiffs have requested that we certify several questions to the Texas Supreme Court. Specifically, they assert that we should ask the court (1) whether this Court correctly interpreted Texas law in Sanchez, and (2) whether the Sanchez interpretation of § 82.004 violated the Texas Constitution. 35 The Texas Constitution allows federal appellate courts to certify questions to the Texas Supreme Court if no Texas Supreme Court authority is on point TEX. CONST. art. V, § 3-c; see also TEX.R.APP. P. 58.1. However, certification is not a proper avenue to change our binding precedent. Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1247 (5th Cir.1997). Once a panel of this Court has settled on the state law to be applied in a diversity case, the precedent should be followed by other panels without regard to any alleged existing confusion in state law, absent a subsequent state court decision or statutory amendment which makes this Court's decision clearly wrong. Lee v. Frozen Food Express, Inc., 592 F.2d 271, 272 (5th Cir.1979).
36 A panel of this Court interpreted § 82.004 in Sanchez, and two other panels followed that interpretation in Harris and Davis. Absent a subsequent state court decision or statutory amendment which makes this Court's decision clearly wrong, this Court will deny this and any future motion to certify questions related to the correctness of our Sanchez decision. Lee, 592 F.2d at 272. We also take this opportunity to issue the caveat to future litigants that, absent a contrary Texas Supreme Court opinion or a legislative amendment to § 82.004, we shall henceforth consider our Erie guesses in Sanchez, Harris, Davis, and this case to be settled law in this Circuit as to the applicability and interpretation of § 82.004 in regard to tobacco being an inherently unsafe product, and further appeals may be deemed frivolous by this Court.
37 We likewise decline to certify the question of the constitutionality of our interpretation of § 82.004 in Sanchez. Absent genuinely unsettled matters of state law, we are reluctant to certify because we do not lightly abdicate our mandate to decide issues of state law when sitting in diversity. Jefferson, 106 F.3d at 1247-48. The ability to certify questions is a valuable tool, but we are cautious to avoid its overuse lest we wear out our welcome. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 622, 623 (5th Cir.1992). The tests for determining the constitutionality of a statute are developed enough in Texas for us to apply these tests with confidence. Thus, certification is inappropriate.