Tarr v. Manchester Insurance Corp‪.‬

Taking appellant's claim on its strongest basis, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on certification to it by the United States District Court of two questions involving the New Hampshire Workmen's Compensation statute, also answered a third question, which answer, if it stands, is largely dispositive of the present action, against appellant. Tarr, Administratrix v. Republic Corp., (1976) 116 N.H. 99, 352 A.2d 708. Appellant's counsel discovered this circumstance after the expiration of the ten day period allowed for filing a petition for rehearing in the state court. Instead of moving the New Hampshire court to accept a petition for rehearing late, appellant chose to proceed in the district court, where it was rebuffed. It now asks us to correct the New Hampshire court's interpretation of its statute, or, alternatively, to recertify. Clearly, we cannot do the former. No matter what the result, we cannot correct a state court's interpretation of its own law. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 1975, 421 U.S. 684, 690-91, 95 S. Ct. 1881, 44 L. Ed. 2d 508.