- 18 - instant motion, the parties focus on whether, in light of our findings of fact, the Commissioner’s position had a reasonable basis in law. As a result of the parties’ limited arguments, we do not attempt to explore what respondent knew of the facts at any specific date and the consequences of knowing or not knowing any specific fact; we thereby avoid entering what might have turned out to be a Serbonian bog.7 In Downing I, we described the parties’ dispute as to the requirements of Louisiana law, which both sides contended to be controlling in the instant case, as follows: We consider first whether a marriage contract, which was properly filed for registry in the parish in which petitioners were domiciled at the time of this filing, must also be filed for registry in a different parish for the marriage contract to be effective toward third persons as to movables,13 if petitioners have in the meanwhile become domiciled in that different parish. [Fn. 14 reference omitted.] 13 Both sides treat the matter before us as being controlled entirely by the rules as to movables; under the circumstances, we limit our determinations to the dispute that the parties present. We noted in Downing I that both sides agreed that there were no Louisiana court opinions resolving this matter. Both sides directed our attention to a treatise on Louisiana community 7 For a recent review of “Serbonian bog” references in American judicial opinions, see Potter, “Surveying the Serbonian Bog: A Brief History of a Judicial Metaphor”, 28 Tul. Mar. L.J. 519 (2004).Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011