Court Opinion

ID: 9459049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:08:52.235194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:59.642660
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the main opinion but wish to add a brief comment.
It makes good judicial administrative sense to recognize that a trial judge is knowledgeable of the state law in his resident state and to accord appropriate weight to his expertise in this regard on appeal. But this acceptable premise becomes unacceptable, even a judicial fallacy, when extended as a foundation for a self-imposed rule, seemingly developed from varying language in some of our earlier opinions and reiterated here, to the effect that the interpretation of state law by a trial court should be accepted by this court unless such interpretation is “clearly erroneous”. Surely “clearly erroneous” should not be confused with the words of art contained in the context of Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and thus be a positive limitation upon the scope of appellate review. Accordingly I choose to treat the words as words of convenience and subject to flexible application. To do otherwise would indeed be a fallacy under the particular circumstances of this case.
The trial judge, Judge Finesilver, is resident in Colorado and earlier served as a state trial judge. In another case I would have no hesitancy in subjectively leaning on his recognized expertise in Colorado law. But I need not do so in this case and for the best of reasons. My Brothers McWilliams and Doyle are also resident in Colorado; and- each came to this court after extended and distinguished service on the Colorado Supreme Court. All three are in agreement in this case as to the proper interpretation of applicable Colorado law. I share their views and so concur.