Knowledge

Federal common law

Source đź“ť

178:, the Court recognized that federal courts could still create federal common law, albeit in limited circumstances where federal or Constitutional interests were at stake, Congress had inadequately addressed the situation sub judice, and the application of individual state laws in various jurisdictions would create unacceptable levels of diversity or uncertainty. When fashioning new federal common law, the Court may either adopt a reasonable state law, look to its own precedent, or create new law. 225:(1812), held that federal courts had no jurisdiction to define new common law crimes. For federal crimes, there must always be a (constitutionally valid) statute defining the offense, jurisdiction of federal courts and the penalties. Although there is no Supreme Court decision prohibiting state courts from defining common law offenses, they have been rare, and the 241:
All fifty states have both state and federal courts. Federal courts have jurisdiction over matters of federal concern, meaning federal law and in particular federal law that pre-empts state law when an issue is within the federal government’s exclusive domain. The other type of jurisdiction conferred
213:
Statutes enacted by the deliberative legislative process are the preferred source of American criminal law. Modern American criminal law reflects a variety of sources; some crimes existed at common law, while others that address modern problems like computer crimes are new. The Constitution prohibits
200:
that the New York Constitution made the common law subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." Thus, even when a federal court has authority to make common law, that law is subject to alteration by Congress. This principle finds
99:
was that the federal courts would craft a superior common law, and the state courts would voluntarily choose to adopt it. This hope was not fulfilled, however, as the principles of the common law of the several states continued to dramatically diverge in subsequent decades. Many litigants began to
186:
Federal common law is valid only to the extent that Congress has not repealed the common law. The Supreme Court has explained that, "when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision resting on federal common law, the need for such an unusual exercise of law-making by federal
141:
decision did not put an end to other types of federal common law. Several areas of federal common law remain, in two basic categories: areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law, and areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal
169:. Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable. 242:
upon federal courts is known as diversity jurisdiction and it exists where the amount in controversy is greater than $ 75,000.00 and no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any of the plaintiffs in the case (complete diversity).
218:
laws for states in Article I §10, the same as it does for Congress in §9, but there is no constitutional provision that outright prohibits courts from defining common law offenses. In Federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court decision in
655: 1572: 92:) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law. 1447: 870: 862: 830: 202: 1283: 1628: 1532: 130:, holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the 1275: 878: 563: 1235: 1227: 854: 555: 1767: 1243: 671: 1660: 539: 205:: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." 1211: 902: 407: 62:
have applied state law as the substantive laws, with few exceptions. Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.
1540: 523: 104:: abusing the availability of the federal courts for the specific purpose of having cases decided under federal common law, in lieu of state common law. 1139: 716: 1652: 1155: 708: 472: 918: 1251: 1059: 1259: 886: 531: 950: 733: 312: 1163: 328: 1732: 1644: 296: 728: 280: 190:
During the era when the Constitution was written, it was understood that common law was alterable by legislatures. For example,
1431: 460: 910: 679: 575: 174: 1676: 1171: 1015: 750: 1889: 798: 594: 401: 220: 1564: 966: 507: 469: 344: 1822: 926: 1131: 259: 1267: 1123: 958: 486: 1604: 1556: 894: 806: 1636: 1365: 990: 974: 663: 1668: 1580: 1051: 774: 700: 31: 1964: 1349: 790: 766: 691: 81: 35: 1905: 1107: 982: 586: 453: 233:
may recognize the common law offenses that existed at the time the statute was enacted as punishable.
1716: 1075: 118: 44: 74:
Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of
1937: 1708: 1357: 1147: 1115: 822: 602: 1921: 1913: 1850: 1492: 942: 639: 134:
Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", with the operative word being "general".
1684: 1402: 1099: 838: 782: 758: 515: 85: 59: 1791: 1692: 1524: 1467: 1219: 1203: 1179: 1083: 1043: 656:
Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.
446: 411: 196: 438: 8: 1508: 1484: 1394: 1341: 1027: 814: 498: 162: 1897: 1783: 1740: 1596: 1573:
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State
1476: 1377: 1195: 1035: 934: 191: 1929: 1797: 1775: 1759: 1724: 1700: 1455: 1291: 1187: 1091: 742: 610: 547: 414: 230: 1834: 1299: 846: 618: 226: 1881: 1842: 1588: 1548: 1500: 1067: 871:
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
1612: 1516: 1448:
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
1439: 1320: 647: 356: 158: 101: 76: 54: 39: 389:
The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International Volume I
229:
and most states have abolished common law offenses. In a minority of states a
1958: 1423: 1386: 863:
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
150: 146: 23: 831:
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
16:
U.S. law term for common law developed by federal, rather than state, courts
1620: 166: 49: 89: 27: 1284:
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.
260:"ArtIII.S2.C1.16.6 State Law in Diversity Cases and the Erie Doctrine" 149:
has given courts power to formulate common law rules in areas such as
154: 1414: 1332: 1629:
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
1533:
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures
1276:
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.
879:
Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community
564:
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
181: 1236:
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
1228:
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
88:(allowing them to hear cases between parties from different 855:
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
556:
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
468: 84:
held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their
1768:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
672:
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
42:, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in 1661:
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
540:
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
429:
The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America
1212:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
903:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
524:
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux
1541:
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
1140:Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 1156:American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. 717:Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. 1956: 1653:Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 709:District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman 919:Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York 236: 208: 1252:Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor 1060:American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton 454: 1260:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson 887:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe 532:United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. 373:. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 4. 1164:Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. 951:Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. 461: 447: 382: 380: 182:Congressional repeal of federal common law 395: 1733:FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine 1645:Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation 386: 377: 1957: 426: 391:. Oxford University Press. p. 83. 368: 1869: 1820: 1318: 1013: 911:Dolan v. United States Postal Service 680:Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 484: 442: 175:Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 95:The reasoning behind the decision in 65: 1677:Clapper v. Amnesty International USA 1172:Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States 107: 1890:Osborn v. Bank of the United States 1432:Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner 799:Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 595:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy 116:In 1938, the Supreme Court decided 13: 1565:Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India 1319: 967:Jam v. International Finance Corp. 508:Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. 431:. Sage Publications. p. 1843. 203:first sentence of the Constitution 14: 1976: 751:The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon 325:Clearfield Trust v. United States 172:Furthermore, in the 1943 case of 1014: 927:Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons 1268:Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. 959:OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs 420: 371:An Introduction to Criminal Law 1605:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 1557:Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois 895:Republic of Austria v. Altmann 807:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez 485: 362: 350: 334: 318: 302: 286: 270: 252: 1: 1637:DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno 1366:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer 975:Republic of Sudan v. Harrison 664:Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 245: 1581:City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 775:Schillinger v. United States 701:Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. 387:Fletcher, George P. (2007). 309:Texas Industries v. Radcliff 58:, federal courts exercising 36:courts of the various states 7: 1821: 1350:Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez 791:United States v. Wunderlich 237:Federal practice litigation 209:Federal criminal common law 10: 1981: 1906:Mistretta v. United States 1870: 1132:Burton v. United States II 1108:City of St. Louis v. Myers 983:Opati v. Republic of Sudan 587:Murdock v. City of Memphis 427:Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). 1876: 1865: 1829: 1816: 1751: 1717:TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 1466: 1413: 1376: 1331: 1327: 1314: 1124:Burton v. United States I 1076:United States v. Jackalow 1052:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 1022: 1009: 727: 690: 629: 574: 497: 493: 480: 119:Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 45:Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 30:that is developed by the 1938:Bank Markazi v. Peterson 1709:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski 1358:Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski 1148:Muskrat v. United States 1116:Barrett v. United States 823:United States v. Stanley 603:Fox Film Corp. v. Muller 578:independent state ground 1922:United States v. Hatter 1914:Peretz v. United States 1851:Cramer v. United States 1493:Massachusetts v. Mellon 1244:Thomas v. Union Carbide 943:United States v. Bormes 692:Rooker–Feldman doctrine 640:United States v. Hudson 403:United States v. Hudson 369:Carlan, Philip (2011). 222:United States v. Hudson 1685:Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins 1403:Nixon v. United States 1100:United States v. Klein 991:Trump v. United States 839:Saudi Arabia v. Nelson 783:Feres v. United States 759:Mississippi v. Johnson 516:Burford v. Sun Oil Co. 266:. Library of Congress. 264:Constitution Annotated 86:diversity jurisdiction 60:diversity jurisdiction 1843:United States v. Burr 1792:Rucho v. Common Cause 1693:Texas v. Pennsylvania 1669:Bond v. United States 1525:Sierra Club v. Morton 1220:Arizona v. New Mexico 1204:Glidden Co. v. Zdanok 1180:Wisconsin v. Illinois 1084:Ex parte Vallandigham 1044:United States v. More 734:presidential immunity 341:Milwaukee v. Illinois 197:The Federalist Papers 26:law used to describe 767:United States v. Lee 187:courts disappears." 80:. In that case, the 34:, instead of by the 1509:Altvater v. Freeman 1485:Fairchild v. Hughes 1395:Goldwater v. Carter 1342:DeFunis v. Odegaard 1028:Chisholm v. Georgia 815:Nixon v. Fitzgerald 163:interstate commerce 48:(1938), overturned 1965:Federal common law 1898:Forrester v. White 1784:Vieth v. Jubelirer 1741:Murthy v. Missouri 1597:Diamond v. Charles 1477:Bailiff v. Tipping 1378:Political question 1196:Colegrove v. Green 1036:Marbury v. Madison 935:Samantar v. Yousuf 729:Sovereign immunity 631:Federal common law 470:U.S. Supreme Court 201:expression in the 192:Alexander Hamilton 82:U.S. Supreme Court 20:Federal common law 1952: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1930:Stern v. Marshall 1861: 1860: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1798:Benisek v. Lamone 1776:Davis v. Bandemer 1725:Biden v. Nebraska 1701:Trump v. New York 1456:Trump v. New York 1310: 1309: 1292:Bowles v. Russell 1188:Crowell v. Benson 1092:Ex parte McCardle 1005: 1004: 1001: 1000: 743:Little v. Barreme 611:Harrison v. NAACP 548:Younger v. Harris 231:reception statute 1972: 1867: 1866: 1835:Ex parte Bollman 1818: 1817: 1329: 1328: 1316: 1315: 1300:Patchak v. Zinke 1011: 1010: 847:Clinton v. Jones 619:Michigan v. Long 495: 494: 482: 481: 463: 456: 449: 440: 439: 433: 432: 424: 418: 399: 393: 392: 384: 375: 374: 366: 360: 354: 348: 338: 332: 322: 316: 306: 300: 293:Erie v. Tompkins 290: 284: 274: 268: 267: 256: 227:Model Penal Code 1980: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1944: 1882:Stuart v. Laird 1872: 1857: 1825: 1804: 1747: 1589:Allen v. Wright 1549:Warth v. Seldin 1501:Ex parte Levitt 1462: 1409: 1372: 1323: 1306: 1068:Sheldon v. Sill 1018: 997: 732: 723: 686: 625: 577: 570: 489: 476: 467: 437: 436: 425: 421: 400: 396: 385: 378: 367: 363: 355: 351: 339: 335: 323: 319: 307: 303: 291: 287: 275: 271: 258: 257: 253: 248: 239: 211: 184: 114: 72: 52:'s decision in 17: 12: 11: 5: 1978: 1968: 1967: 1950: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1943: 1942: 1934: 1926: 1918: 1910: 1902: 1894: 1886: 1877: 1874: 1873: 1863: 1862: 1859: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1847: 1839: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1803: 1802: 1788: 1780: 1772: 1764: 1760:Hayburn's Case 1755: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1746: 1745: 1737: 1729: 1721: 1713: 1705: 1697: 1689: 1681: 1673: 1665: 1657: 1649: 1641: 1633: 1625: 1617: 1613:Raines v. Byrd 1609: 1601: 1593: 1585: 1577: 1569: 1561: 1553: 1545: 1537: 1529: 1521: 1517:Flast v. Cohen 1513: 1505: 1497: 1489: 1481: 1472: 1470: 1464: 1463: 1461: 1460: 1452: 1444: 1440:Laird v. Tatum 1436: 1428: 1419: 1417: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1399: 1391: 1382: 1380: 1374: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1362: 1354: 1346: 1337: 1335: 1325: 1324: 1321:Justiciability 1312: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1305: 1304: 1296: 1288: 1280: 1272: 1264: 1256: 1248: 1240: 1232: 1224: 1216: 1208: 1200: 1192: 1184: 1176: 1168: 1160: 1152: 1144: 1136: 1128: 1120: 1112: 1104: 1096: 1088: 1080: 1072: 1064: 1056: 1048: 1040: 1032: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1007: 1006: 1003: 1002: 999: 998: 996: 995: 987: 979: 971: 963: 955: 947: 939: 931: 923: 915: 907: 899: 891: 883: 875: 867: 859: 851: 843: 835: 827: 819: 811: 803: 795: 787: 779: 771: 763: 755: 747: 738: 736: 725: 724: 722: 721: 713: 705: 696: 694: 688: 687: 685: 684: 676: 668: 660: 652: 648:Swift v. Tyson 644: 635: 633: 627: 626: 624: 623: 615: 607: 599: 591: 582: 580: 572: 571: 569: 568: 560: 552: 544: 536: 528: 520: 512: 503: 501: 491: 490: 478: 477: 466: 465: 458: 451: 443: 435: 434: 419: 394: 376: 361: 349: 333: 317: 301: 285: 277:Swift v. Tyson 269: 250: 249: 247: 244: 238: 235: 210: 207: 194:emphasized in 183: 180: 159:bankruptcy law 128:Swift v. Tyson 113: 106: 102:forum shopping 97:Swift v. Tyson 77:Swift v. Tyson 71: 64: 55:Swift v. Tyson 40:Louis Brandeis 38:. Ever since 32:federal courts 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1977: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1960: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1868: 1864: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1819: 1815: 1800: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1424:Poe v. Ullman 1421: 1420: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1387:Baker v. Carr 1384: 1383: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1008: 993: 992: 988: 985: 984: 980: 977: 976: 972: 969: 968: 964: 961: 960: 956: 953: 952: 948: 945: 944: 940: 937: 936: 932: 929: 928: 924: 921: 920: 916: 913: 912: 908: 905: 904: 900: 897: 896: 892: 889: 888: 884: 881: 880: 876: 873: 872: 868: 865: 864: 860: 857: 856: 852: 849: 848: 844: 841: 840: 836: 833: 832: 828: 825: 824: 820: 817: 816: 812: 809: 808: 804: 801: 800: 796: 793: 792: 788: 785: 784: 780: 777: 776: 772: 769: 768: 764: 761: 760: 756: 753: 752: 748: 745: 744: 740: 739: 737: 735: 730: 726: 719: 718: 714: 711: 710: 706: 703: 702: 698: 697: 695: 693: 689: 682: 681: 677: 674: 673: 669: 666: 665: 661: 658: 657: 653: 650: 649: 645: 642: 641: 637: 636: 634: 632: 628: 621: 620: 616: 613: 612: 608: 605: 604: 600: 597: 596: 592: 589: 588: 584: 583: 581: 579: 573: 566: 565: 561: 558: 557: 553: 550: 549: 545: 542: 541: 537: 534: 533: 529: 526: 525: 521: 518: 517: 513: 510: 509: 505: 504: 502: 500: 496: 492: 488: 483: 479: 474: 471: 464: 459: 457: 452: 450: 445: 444: 441: 430: 423: 416: 413: 409: 405: 404: 398: 390: 383: 381: 372: 365: 358: 357:Federalist 84 353: 346: 342: 337: 330: 326: 321: 314: 310: 305: 298: 294: 289: 282: 278: 273: 265: 261: 255: 251: 243: 234: 232: 228: 224: 223: 217: 216:ex post facto 206: 204: 199: 198: 193: 188: 179: 177: 176: 170: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 151:admiralty law 148: 147:U.S. Congress 143: 140: 135: 133: 129: 125: 121: 120: 111: 105: 103: 98: 93: 91: 87: 83: 79: 78: 69: 63: 61: 57: 56: 51: 47: 46: 41: 37: 33: 29: 25: 24:United States 22:is a term of 21: 1936: 1928: 1920: 1912: 1904: 1896: 1888: 1880: 1849: 1841: 1833: 1796: 1790: 1782: 1774: 1766: 1758: 1739: 1731: 1723: 1715: 1707: 1699: 1691: 1683: 1675: 1667: 1659: 1651: 1643: 1635: 1627: 1621:FEC v. Akins 1619: 1611: 1603: 1595: 1587: 1579: 1571: 1563: 1555: 1547: 1539: 1531: 1523: 1515: 1507: 1499: 1491: 1483: 1475: 1454: 1446: 1438: 1430: 1422: 1401: 1393: 1385: 1364: 1356: 1348: 1340: 1298: 1290: 1282: 1274: 1266: 1258: 1250: 1242: 1234: 1226: 1218: 1210: 1202: 1194: 1186: 1178: 1170: 1162: 1154: 1146: 1138: 1130: 1122: 1114: 1106: 1098: 1090: 1082: 1074: 1066: 1058: 1050: 1042: 1034: 1026: 1016:Jurisdiction 989: 981: 973: 965: 957: 949: 941: 933: 925: 917: 909: 901: 893: 885: 877: 869: 861: 853: 845: 837: 829: 821: 813: 805: 797: 789: 781: 773: 765: 757: 749: 741: 715: 707: 699: 678: 670: 662: 654: 646: 638: 630: 617: 609: 601: 593: 585: 576:Adequate and 562: 554: 546: 538: 530: 522: 514: 506: 428: 422: 402: 397: 388: 370: 364: 352: 345:451 U.S. 304 340: 336: 329:318 U.S. 363 324: 320: 313:451 U.S. 630 308: 304: 292: 288: 276: 272: 263: 254: 240: 221: 215: 212: 195: 189: 185: 173: 171: 167:civil rights 144: 138: 136: 131: 127: 123: 117: 115: 109: 96: 94: 75: 73: 67: 53: 50:Joseph Story 43: 19: 18: 473:Article III 417: (1812) 297:304 U.S. 64 142:interests. 90:U.S. states 499:Abstention 487:Federalism 246:References 126:overruled 100:engage in 28:common law 281:41 U.S. 1 155:antitrust 1959:Category 1468:Standing 1415:Ripeness 1333:Mootness 475:case law 112:doctrine 70:doctrine 1823:Treason 347:(1981). 331:(1943). 315:(1981). 299:(1938). 283:(1842). 1941:(2016) 1933:(2011) 1925:(2001) 1917:(1991) 1909:(1989) 1901:(1988) 1893:(1824) 1885:(1803) 1871:Others 1854:(1945) 1846:(1807) 1838:(1807) 1801:(2019) 1787:(2004) 1779:(1986) 1771:(1985) 1763:(1792) 1752:Others 1744:(2024) 1736:(2024) 1728:(2023) 1720:(2021) 1712:(2021) 1704:(2020) 1696:(2020) 1688:(2016) 1680:(2013) 1672:(2011) 1664:(2011) 1656:(2007) 1648:(2007) 1640:(2006) 1632:(2000) 1624:(1998) 1616:(1997) 1608:(1992) 1600:(1986) 1592:(1984) 1584:(1983) 1576:(1982) 1568:(1978) 1560:(1977) 1552:(1975) 1544:(1974) 1536:(1973) 1528:(1972) 1520:(1968) 1512:(1943) 1504:(1937) 1496:(1923) 1488:(1922) 1480:(1805) 1459:(2020) 1451:(1985) 1443:(1972) 1435:(1967) 1427:(1961) 1406:(1993) 1398:(1979) 1390:(1962) 1369:(2023) 1361:(2021) 1353:(2016) 1345:(1974) 1303:(2018) 1295:(2007) 1287:(2005) 1279:(2002) 1271:(1995) 1263:(1986) 1255:(1986) 1247:(1985) 1239:(1982) 1231:(1977) 1223:(1976) 1215:(1974) 1207:(1962) 1199:(1946) 1191:(1932) 1183:(1929) 1175:(1926) 1167:(1921) 1159:(1916) 1151:(1911) 1143:(1908) 1135:(1906) 1127:(1905) 1119:(1898) 1111:(1885) 1103:(1871) 1095:(1869) 1087:(1864) 1079:(1862) 1071:(1850) 1063:(1828) 1055:(1816) 1047:(1805) 1039:(1803) 1031:(1793) 994:(2024) 986:(2020) 978:(2019) 970:(2019) 962:(2015) 954:(2014) 946:(2012) 938:(2010) 930:(2008) 922:(2007) 914:(2006) 906:(2005) 898:(2004) 890:(2003) 882:(2003) 874:(2001) 866:(1999) 858:(1998) 850:(1997) 842:(1993) 834:(1991) 826:(1987) 818:(1982) 810:(1978) 802:(1964) 794:(1951) 786:(1950) 778:(1894) 770:(1882) 762:(1867) 754:(1812) 746:(1804) 720:(2005) 712:(1983) 704:(1923) 683:(1943) 675:(1938) 667:(1938) 659:(1928) 651:(1842) 643:(1812) 622:(1983) 614:(1959) 606:(1935) 598:(1896) 590:(1875) 567:(1983) 559:(1976) 551:(1971) 543:(1964) 535:(1962) 527:(1959) 519:(1943) 511:(1941) 165:, and 410: 68:Swift 412:U.S. 145:The 139:Erie 137:The 132:Erie 124:Erie 110:Erie 108:The 66:The 731:and 1961:: 1795:/ 415:32 408:11 406:, 379:^ 343:, 327:, 311:, 295:, 279:, 262:. 161:, 157:, 153:, 122:. 462:e 455:t 448:v 359:.

Index

United States
common law
federal courts
courts of the various states
Louis Brandeis
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Joseph Story
Swift v. Tyson
diversity jurisdiction
Swift v. Tyson
U.S. Supreme Court
diversity jurisdiction
U.S. states
forum shopping
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
U.S. Congress
admiralty law
antitrust
bankruptcy law
interstate commerce
civil rights
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers
first sentence of the Constitution
United States v. Hudson
Model Penal Code
reception statute
"ArtIII.S2.C1.16.6 State Law in Diversity Cases and the Erie Doctrine"
41 U.S. 1

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑