Monday, February 21, 2005
Something just occurred to me...
Recently put into law was a law that class action law suits had to be settled in federal court. Now here is the problem...
1. Class action law suits are generally tort suits.
2. Torts are based on common law.
3. There is no Federal common law. It was rules unconstitutional in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64, 78) 1938.
4. The law mentioned above was designed so that a class action suit would not be shopped around for the best state to have the suit.
Now let me ask this...
1. Since there is no Federal Common Law, which state's common law will be applicable?
2. Should there be a Federal Common Law?
3. What affect would that have on cases that cite Erie R.R. v. Tompkins (looking at the cases that do cite Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, how would they have faired given a Federal Common Law)
4. Is there a universal common law? We adopted England's common law once upon a time. What of international law?
Sil
Recently put into law was a law that class action law suits had to be settled in federal court. Now here is the problem...
1. Class action law suits are generally tort suits.
2. Torts are based on common law.
3. There is no Federal common law. It was rules unconstitutional in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64, 78) 1938.
4. The law mentioned above was designed so that a class action suit would not be shopped around for the best state to have the suit.
Now let me ask this...
1. Since there is no Federal Common Law, which state's common law will be applicable?
2. Should there be a Federal Common Law?
3. What affect would that have on cases that cite Erie R.R. v. Tompkins (looking at the cases that do cite Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, how would they have faired given a Federal Common Law)
4. Is there a universal common law? We adopted England's common law once upon a time. What of international law?
Sil
Comments:
Post a Comment
