MACGREGOR, EXECUTOR,
v.
STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
MacGregor sought to recover premiums paid for a life annuity contract in a federal diversity action, claiming Michigan insurance regulations applied to the contract executed outside Michigan. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions that Michigan's insurance statutes did not apply to contracts executed outside the state, declining to disturb the federal courts' interpretation of Michigan law in the absence of guidance from Michigan state courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner brought this action to recover the premium of a life annuity contract purchased by his decedent. The suit was begun in a state court of Michigan, but was removed, because of diversity of citizenship, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Petitioner’s claim is founded on the applicability of Michigan legislation regulating the conduct of insurance business in Michigan. The District Court held that “the contract involved herein having been executed outside the State of Michigan, the statutes of the State of Michigan relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable.” Accordingly judgment went against petitioner. This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 119 F. 2d 148.
No decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, or of any other court of that State, construing the relevant Michigan law has been brought to our attention. In the absence of such guidance, we shall leave undisturbed the interpretation placed upon purely local law by a Michigan federal judge of long experience and by three circuit judges whose circuit includes Michigan.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1976)…. We are unable to say that the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in applying to this case the rule of Duke Power Co. v. State Board, which involved closely analogous facts.” And in MacGregor v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., [*347] 315 U. S. 280, 281, the Court stated: “No decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, or of any other court of that State, construing the relevant Michigan law has been brought to our attention. In the absence of such guidance, we shall leave undisturbed the inter…
-
Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of Am., Inc., 350 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1956)…ovement is under way in Vermont to change the result of those cases. Since the federal judge making those findings is from the Vermont bar, we give special weight to his statement of what the Vermont law is. See [*205] MacGregor v. State Mutual Co., 315 U. S. 280; Hills-borough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 630; Steele v. General Mills, 329 U. S. 433, 439. We agree with him that if arbitration could not be compelled in the Vermont courts, it should not be compelled in the Federal District Court. Were the quest…
-
Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1974)…ew of an able and experienced circuit judge of the circuit which includes Texas and of two capable district judges trained in Texas law.” Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 499 (1941). See also MacGregor v. State Mutual Life Assur. Co.; 315 U. S. 280, 281 (1942); Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U. S..33, 39 (1941). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated arid the cases are remanded so that that court may reconsider [*392] whether the controlling issue of Florida law should be certified to the Flor…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- MacGREGOR v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 119 F.2d 148 (6th Cir. 1941)