Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

U.S. Case Law

304 U.S. 64 (1938), required federal courts to apply state law in diversity cases (i.e., cases in which the litigants are from different jurisdictions). Prior to Erie diversity cases were decided on the basis of what was held to be a kind of federal common law, which consisted of the “laws of the several states” plus federal courts'—not states'—interpretations of those laws (Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842)). Supporters of this earlier position believed that a federal common law was conducive to national development, while opponents claimed that it rode roughshod over states' rights. In an unprecedented ruling, Justice Louis D. Brandeis declared the earlier Supreme Court decision (Swift) unconstitutional, thus changing the course of diversity proceedings. Henceforth there would be no federal “common law” in diversity cases but only federal application of state laws.

Dictionary Entries Near Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Erie doctrine

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

ERISA

Cite this Entry

“Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/Erie%20Railroad%20Co.%20v.%20Tompkins. Accessed 15 Jun. 2024.

Love words? Need even more definitions?

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!