THE STEWART ORGANIZATION, INC., A CORPORATION; WALTER H. STEWART, AND JAMES S. SNOW, JR., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

v.

RICOH CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, RICOH OF AMERICA, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

Citator

Cited By

• Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988)
  …eable as a matter of federal law. 779 F. 2d 643 (1986). The panel therefore reversed the order of the District Court and remanded with instructions to transfer the case to a Manhattan court. After petitioner successfully moved for rehearing en banc, 785 F. 2d 896 (1986), the full Court of Appeals proceeded to adopt the result, and much of the reasoning, of the panel opinion. 810 F. 2d 1066 (1987).2 The en banc court, citing Congress’ enactment or approval of several rules to govern venue determinations in di…
• Alexander Proudfoot Co. World Headquarters L.P. v. Thayer, 877 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1989)
  …spoused in Erie, a federal court must determine whether to apply federal or state law to settle the disputed issue. The question of which law to apply is a “sticky” one, see Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F. 2d 643, 645 (11th Cir.), vacated, 785 F. 2d 896 (11th Cir.1986), and is best understood by examining Erie and its progeny. Erie eliminated the existence of independent federal common law in diversity cases by overruling Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L.Ed. 865 (1842). The Court denounce…
• The Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1987)
  …al and state court treatment of forum selection clauses will lead to "the kinds of forum shopping ... deplored in Erie." Post at 1077; see also Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F. 2d 643, 651 (11th Cir.1986) (Godbold, J., dissenting), vacated, 785 F. 2d 896 (11th Cir.1986). The forum shopping that disturbed the Erie Court was the ability of a plaintiff to get an entirely different result in his case, depending on whether he brought it in state or federal court. As I demonstrate in the text, the Van Dus…