Case Brief Civil Procedure Bauer State Law in Federal Courts State Horizontal Choice of Law rules 2 7 15 Identity of Case Klaxon Co v Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co 313 U S 487 1941 Page 904 of the casebook Summary of Facts Procedural History Klaxon made a contract with Stentor to use its best efforts to manufacture and sell a product of Klaxon s Stentor was a NY corporation but they reincorporated to Delaware prior to Delaware just prior to court proceedings Klaxon sues for failure of contract in federal district court in Delaware The contract was executed and to be performed in NY Delaware based federal court during trial proceedings applies a penalty interest from a statute in NY based on the fact that this was essentially a NY controversy They justified it by stating that this was a substantive and not procedural issue and the substantive law of the case where the injury occurred should be supplied No such law existed in Delaware Interest penalty was overturned Statement of the Issue When the laws are in conflict which laws must the district courts follow Holding The laws which the state they live in says they should states can pass laws which decide what happens in case of controversy in laws in federal courts in their states Reasoning Uniformity within a state cannot allow a federal district court to decide which laws apply even if they have a reason that appears to be a good one States can decide to adopt the laws of a state in which the controversy occurred many do or not about the same not good policy to hold your citizens to the laws of another state Evaluation Is this any different from the choice of law problems presented in Black White The company relocated itself to get more favorable laws breach of contract pending Whoops
View Full Document
Unlocking...