Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in ...
Erie Doctrine, state statute of limitations vs. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins: 447 U.S. 74 (1980) Federalism, freedom of speech Jenkins v. Anderson: 447 U.S. 231 (1980) Criminal defendant's silence prior to arrest may be held against him in court Agins v. City of Tiburon: 447 U.S. 255 (1980) Zoning and ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
Other doctrines, such as the abstention doctrine and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine limit the power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts. The Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply substantive state law to claims arising from state law (which may be heard in federal courts under supplemental or diversity ...
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and how federal courts are to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The Court held that the New York state rule applied.
Thus, it is not Erie but the REA which created the distinction between substantive and procedural law. Thus, while state substantive law is applied, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence still govern the "procedural" matters in a diversity action, as clarified in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities (1996). The ...
Discover the best free online games at AOL.com - Play board, card, casino, puzzle and many more online games while chatting with others in real-time.
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.