FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123643882> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123643882 endingPage "1580" @default.
• W3123643882 startingPage "1531" @default.
• W3123643882 abstract "INTRODUCTION Certain cases live long in the legal imagination. One prime example of this is the Supreme Court's decision in Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,1 which has been described as of the modern cornerstones of our federalism, expressing policies that profoundly touch the allocation of judicial power between the state and federal systems2 and as star of the first magnitude in the legal universe.3 As almost every first-year law student comes to know,4 the so-called Erie doctrine5 generally requires federal courts to apply the law of the state in which the court sits, unless the matter before the court is governed by the Constitution, a federal statute, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or a federal practice, such as whether federal damages law should overcome a state practice.6 Since the decision, the Supreme Court has sought to settle the doctrine's puzzles in a series of cases (including one in the 2009 Term)7 involving the interplay between federal and state laws and procedural rules.8 One such puzzle involves the choice of applicable substantive law in federal courts when a legal dispute crosses state borders. Which state's law should apply when the laws of more than one state are potentially applicable to a case? The Supreme Court provided an answer to that question in Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., when it held that a federal court must apply not only state substantive law but also state conflict-of-laws rules.9 So, for instance, if a case with California and Virginia contacts comes before a Virginia federal district court sitting in diversity,10 the federal court must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state courts of Virginia, which, depending on the facts of the case, may direct the federal court to apply Virginia substantive law or the substantive law of another state.11 In the Court's view, to do otherwise would constantly disturb equal administration of justice in coordinate state and federal courts sitting by side and would do violence to the principle of uniformity within a state, upon which the [Erie] decision is based.12 This holding, while well settled, is not without vigorous criticism.13 Nearly all of the cases considering the doctrine have arisen in the context of either federal/state relations (whether federal or state laws and procedural rules control) or state/state relations (whether the laws of State A or State B control).14 While the doctrine may make sense in the domestic context given that, as a constitutional matter, states and their citizens must be treated equally,15 another question arises in the international context-namely, must a federal court apply the law of a foreign country when directed by state conflict-of-laws rules? What happens when the doctrine goes international?16 The Supreme Court resolved this subpuzzle within the larger Erie/Klaxon puzzle in a short, per curiam opinion in Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Challoner, which held that federal courts must apply state conflict- of-laws rules, even when those rules direct the court to apply the substantive law of a foreign country.17 According to the Day Court, [a] federal court in a diversity case is not free to engraft onto those state rules exceptions or modifications which may commend themselves to the federal court, but which have not commended themselves to the State in which the federal court sits.18 On account of this mandate, federal courts uncritically apply conflict-of-laws rules of the several states that direct them to apply the substantive law of foreign states.19 The purpose of this Article is to unsettle the quiescent waters of this Erie/Klaxon subpuzzle in private international law cases. It may be asked: If the law is so settled, why unsettle it and perhaps further befuddle generations of lawyers and law students whose only hope has been to find any semblance of consistency in the dictates of the doctrine? …" @default.
• W3123643882 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123643882 creator A5055431618 @default.
• W3123643882 creator A5086335396 @default.
• W3123643882 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W3123643882 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3123643882 title "When Erie Goes International" @default.
• W3123643882 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W3123643882 type Work @default.
• W3123643882 sameAs 3123643882 @default.
• W3123643882 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123643882 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123643882 hasAuthorship W3123643882A5055431618 @default.
• W3123643882 hasAuthorship W3123643882A5086335396 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C110346835 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C2776210200 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C2777006572 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C2780598601 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C110346835 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C11413529 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C17319257 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C17744445 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C199539241 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C2776210200 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C2777006572 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C2777351106 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C2778272461 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C2780598601 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C41008148 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C48103436 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C533735693 @default.
• W3123643882 hasConceptScore W3123643882C94625758 @default.
• W3123643882 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3123643882 hasLocation W31236438821 @default.
• W3123643882 hasOpenAccess W3123643882 @default.
• W3123643882 hasPrimaryLocation W31236438821 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W134889122 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W143686600 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W1573566763 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W1628706995 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W2201756929 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W2607237700 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W2609871039 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W2899788401 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3111171995 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3121681119 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3122570017 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3122914489 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3124518653 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3124958648 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3125109289 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3125526750 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3139197104 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3211012024 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W3213811790 @default.
• W3123643882 hasRelatedWork W339697755 @default.
• W3123643882 hasVolume "105" @default.
• W3123643882 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123643882 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123643882 magId "3123643882" @default.
• W3123643882 workType "article" @default.