Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Civ Pro Charts

    Загружено:

    sblanchard5
    154 просмотров1 страница
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases that address conflicts between federal and state law after the Erie doctrine. It summarizes three cases: 1. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse held that a state rule determining when a lawsuit is commenced must be followed over a conflicting federal rule. 2. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan held that a state rule requiring shareholder plaintiffs to post a bond must be followed over the conflicting federal rule. 3. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America held that a state law barring arbitration of disputes involving out-of-state corporations must be followed, not the federal rule requiring arbitration.

    Исходное описание:

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    XLSX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases that address conflicts between federal and state law after the Erie doctrine. It summarizes three cases: 1. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse held that a state rule determining when a lawsuit is commenced must be followed over a conflicting federal rule. 2. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan held that a state rule requiring shareholder plaintiffs to post a bond must be followed over the conflicting federal rule. 3. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America held that a state law barring arbitration of disputes involving out-of-state corporations must be followed, not the federal rule requiring arbitration.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате XLSX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    154 просмотров1 страница

    Civ Pro Charts

    Загружено:

    sblanchard5
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases that address conflicts between federal and state law after the Erie doctrine. It summarizes three cases: 1. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse held that a state rule determining when a lawsuit is commenced must be followed over a conflicting federal rule. 2. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan held that a state rule requiring shareholder plaintiffs to post a bond must be followed over the conflicting federal rule. 3. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America held that a state law barring arbitration of disputes involving out-of-state corporations must be followed, not the federal rule requiring arbitration.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате XLSX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    POST ERIE CASES

    ISSUE

    OUTCOME State law followed

    OPINIONS EXPLANATION "we cannot give (the claim) longer life in the federal ct than it would've had in the state court."

    Commencement of Suit Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & 1. Fed. Rules Civ. Pro --> when suit filed Warehouse 2. KS State rule --> when served

    Bond Requirement 1. Fed. Rule 23.1 --> Bond not required Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan State law followed 2. NJ State rule --> Shareholder corp. must post bond Employment Practices Arbitration Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of 1. Fed. Rule --> Arbitration required State law followed America 2. VT State rule --> Arbitration Barred Out of State corp. not allowed in State ct 1. Fed. Rule --> Woods v. Interstate Realty State law followed 2. MS State rule --> only taxpayers allowed in state ct

    "this statute is not merely a regulation of procedure."

    POST HANNA CASES

    ISSUE

    OUTCOME

    EXPLANATION Does the Fed rule actually cover the specifc issue (question of pertinance)? Sup ct held that Fed rule was not a direct conflcitso determine the validity of the rule based on constitutionif Fed rule is constitutional then used Fed. Rule

    Burlington North R. v. Woods

    D penalized 10% if unsuccessful on appeal Followed Federal 1. Fed. Rule --> Discretionary penalty Practice No 2. AL State Statute --> only taxpayers allowed penalty in state ct Enforcebility of Forum Selection Clauses 1. Fed. Rule --> 28 USC 1404 (TofV) 2. AL State Case Law --> Clauses not enforceable Who decides if damages are excessive (trial ct or appl ct)? 1. Reexaminiation of clause of 7th amendm. 2. NY state requires rvw by Appls ct Followed Federal Practice ignore state case law, give substantial weight to clause Modify Federal Practice by allowing districts courts to examine verdicts for excessiveness

    Stewart Org v. Ricoh

    Gasperini v. Center for Humanities

    Вам также может понравиться