Case Brief Civil Procedure State law in Federal Courts Bauer 2 7 15 Identity of Case Black White Taxicab and Transfer Co v Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Co 276 U S 518 1928 Page 881 of the casebook Summary of Facts Procedural History Both companies start the controversy incorporated in Kentucky Brown and Yellow executes an exclusive contract deal that allows them exclusive access to the Louisville Nashville RR station s customers Black White interfere with the contract Exclusive monopolistic contracts are illegal in Kentucky void as against public policy Brown Yellow reincorporate in Tennessee renew their contract and sue Black White in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction pre corporations are citizens of where they do their principal business Brown Yellow win in federal court as the court applies what it refers to as general federal common law or a review of what various states say about the issue and what they think the law should be as opposed to what Kentucky says the law is Black White appeals Statement of the Issue When a civil state claim is in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction which laws will be used to resolve the controversy Holding Held the federal courts can decide what they think the law should be as they did Federal general common law Reasoning The supreme court doesn t mind these contracts so why should the states Lol This is basically an esoteric view of the law as an ephemeral thing which judges can guess at and guide but that exists apart from them There really is no justification Evaluation This was overruled by Erie and for good reason Brown Yellow was allowed to choose their result by forcing the case into federal court Cases are meant to be predictable based on the relevant law and the relevant law was state law Not really fair to competing businesses
View Full Document
Unlocking...