Erie R.R. v. Tompkins: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). | Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). | ||
'''Facts''': Tompkins, the plaintiff, was walking alongside a railroad track. A passing train operated by the defendant, Erie Railroad, struck him and severed his arm. | |||
'''Procedural History''': Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court. The judge applied "general law," instead of Pennsylvania state tort law. The plaintiff appealed. | |||
'''Holding''': Federal courts must apply the governing substantive state law. There is no "federal general common law." | |||
[[Category:Cases:Civil Procedure]] | [[Category:Cases:Civil Procedure]] | ||
Revision as of 03:14, May 6, 2011
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).
Facts: Tompkins, the plaintiff, was walking alongside a railroad track. A passing train operated by the defendant, Erie Railroad, struck him and severed his arm.
Procedural History: Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court. The judge applied "general law," instead of Pennsylvania state tort law. The plaintiff appealed.
Holding: Federal courts must apply the governing substantive state law. There is no "federal general common law."
