Opinion ID: 659752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certification to the Washington Supreme Court

Text: 12 A federal court may certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court when, in its opinion, the law of the State has not been clearly determined.... Wash.Rev.Code. Sec. 2.60.020 (1992). The use of a certification procedure in a given case rests in the sound discretion of the federal court. Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974). We decline Todd's request to certify the question of the correct interpretation of the Recreational Use Act to the Washington Supreme Court. 13 We can resolve [this] issue of state law with available research materials already at hand. Lehman Brothers, 416 U.S. at 395 (Rehnquist, J., concurring). The decisions in Curran, Matthews, and other cases provide sufficient guidance. See, e.g., McCarver v. Manson Park & Rec. Dist., 92 Wash.2d 370, 597 P.2d 1362, 1364-66 (1979); Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wash.App. 603, 774 P.2d 1255, 1257-1259, review denied, 113 Wash.2d 1020, 781 P.2d 1322 (1989); Riksem v. Seattle, 47 Wash.App. 506, 736 P.2d 275, 277-78 (1987). Further, the Washington legislature has defined the act's purposes and listed pertinent examples of outdoor recreation. Wash.Rev.Code. 4.24.200-210. 14 AFFIRMED.