Court Opinion

ID: 9711231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:26:59.287397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.078868
License: Public Domain

YEAGLEY, Associate Judge,
dissenting in part:
I concur in the decision of the en banc court on the merits, but am of the view that the decision should be given prospective effect only. See Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst Co., 287 U.S. 358, 365, 53 S.Ct. 145, 149, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932), to the effect that it is not a constitutional problem and “[t]he choice for any state may be determined by the juristic philosophy of the judges of her courts, their conceptions of law, its origin and nature.”