after a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. Oliveira cited just two sources from the time of adoption. In a subsequent supplemental surreply, New Prime declined to address the ordinary-meaning issue head-on, instead only reiterating that the matter was for the arbitrator. The district court’s order reflects this dearth of briefing. Rather than directly addressing the less-than-robust argument Oliveira raised in his supplemental brief, the court noted the extensive contrary case law and permitted discovery to resolve the case. See Oliveira, 141 F.Supp.3d at 130-31, 135. When the ordinary-meaning issue reached this court, the record accordingly provided little guidance. See United States v. Clark, 445 U.S. 23, 38, 100 S.Ct. 895, 63 L.Ed.2d 171 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>); Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d at 84-85
holding that the lower court had inappropriately granted relief based on the existence of a possible conflict and explaining an actual conflict is required recognizing courts duty to reconcile opinions from the georgia supreme court recognizing that the opinions issued by inter alia the intermediate appellate and trial courts of sister signatories corroborated the supreme courts understanding of article 17 and were therefore entitled to some degree of consideration holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc recognizing usefulness of lower court opinions