# Margaret Farris Charles Farris, H/w v. Jc Penney Company, Inc

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1999 · 176 F.3d 706

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9492151

## Case

- **Full name:** Margaret FARRIS; Charles Farris, H/W, Appellants, v. JC PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 17, 1999
- **Citations:** 176 F.3d 706; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9357; 1999 WL 308803
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nygaard
- **Judges:** Mansmann, Scirica, Nygaard
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9492151

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never invoked the doctrine of apparent authority to enforce a settlement agreement, but at best, "has left the applicability of the doctrine open...." citing Rothman v. Fillette, 503 Pa. 259, 469 A.2d 543 (1983)

## Opinion text

NYGAARD, J.,
Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I believe, however, that it is neither necessary nor desirable • that we predict whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would recognize apparent authority in this odd situation, because as the majority opinion makes clear, Farris learned of the settlement agreement within minutes and immediately repudiated it. Under these facts, I view this as a contemporaneous repudiation of whatever agreement her attorney reached with counsel for the defendant.
Alternatively, I would, suggest that we certify the apparent authority issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for it to decide. In Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 70 F.3d 291, 304 (3rd Cir.1995), we said that an issue should be certified to the state court “when: (1) the issue is one of importance; (2) it may be determinative of the litigation; and, (3) state law does not provide controlling precedent through which the federal court could resolve the issue.” I think this case qualifies. In any event, I would avoid making the prediction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9492151. Public record. Not legal advice.