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 Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
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 ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company , 276 U.S. 518 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state common law .
The Erie Doctrine, adopted in 1938, held that while Federal law was determinative in procedural matters, state law should control for substantive matters, thus preventing 'forum shopping' between state and Federal courts. The defendant in Guaranty Trust argued that the plaintiff's action was time-barred under a New York statute of limitations ...
Pages in category "United States Erie Doctrine" The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. B.
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.
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.