Show simple item record

Overruling Erie: Nationwide Class Actions and National Common Law

dc.contributor.authorSherry, Suzanna
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-30T13:50:24Z
dc.date.available2014-05-30T13:50:24Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.citation156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2135 (2008)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/6377
dc.descriptionarticle published in law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractIn this essay, part of a symposium on the Class Action Fairness Act, I argue that CAFA should be read as having overruled Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins as applied to the nationwide class actions that fall within CAFA's jurisdictional grant. In the principal paper on which this essay comments, Linda Silberman suggests that Congress should overrule Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. That suggestion, I propose, amounts to swimming halfway across a river. One of Congress's stated goals in enacting CAFA was to restore the intent of the founding generation. Examining the history and purposes of both diversity jurisdiction and the Rules of Decision Act demonstrates that unless CAFA is read to overrule Erie, it has achieved only half its goal.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (9 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectErie Doctrineen_US
dc.subject.lcshClass actions (Civil procedure) -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshCivil law -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshUnited States. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005en_US
dc.titleOverruling Erie: Nationwide Class Actions and National Common Lawen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1087435


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record