Court Opinion

ID: 9736357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:53:43.034348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.163195
License: Public Domain

WIGGINS, J.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result, but write separately to address the reason why I concur. I do not believe it is necessary for us to decide whether we should retain the special-injury rule in order to answer the first certified question. I do not think we should be reconsidering the special-injury rule via certified question. I agree “[t]he purpose of certification is to ascertain what the state law is, not, when the state court *250has already said what it is, to afford a party an opportunity to persuade the court to say something else.” Tarr v. Manchester Ins. Corp., 544 F.2d 14, 15 (1st Cir.1976). I would not rule out reexamining the special-injury rule after reviewing a fully developed record of a case decided by a lower court.