Rules Of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652)

25 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  288 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-10 ·cited 116×
  The federal rule that concealment tolls the statute of limitations applies to actions for treble damages under the Clayton Act, even when a state statute provides the limitations period. However, the complaint here did not sufficiently allege concealment.
• Baker v. F & F Inv.
  420 F.2d 1191· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-06 ·cited 91×
  State statutes of limitations apply to federal civil rights actions and begin to run from the termination of installment contracts, not their execution.
• Morgan v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp. & James P. Scamman
  797 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that under Indiana law, a superintendent and school board attorney lack the authority to bind the school board to a settlement agreement involving employee reinstatement, and federal law does not create a rule reallocating such authority.
• Jarvis v. Johnson
  668 F.2d 740· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 44×
  Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, which provides for prejudgment interest in tort cases, must be applied in diversity actions brought in federal courts in Pennsylvania because its application is outcome-determinative and serves to prevent forum shopping and inequitable ad
• Ceres P'rs v. GEL Assocs.
  918 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 37×
  The Second Circuit adopted a uniform federal statute of limitations for federal securities claims, but affirmed the dismissal because the claims were time-barred under the adopted period.
• Garmon v. Foust
  668 F.2d 400· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that Iowa's general five-year statute of limitations, rather than the two-year statute for injuries to person or reputation, applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Stafford Miller v. Davis
  507 F.2d 308· 6th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 26×
  A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction is not bound by state law that purports to close state courts to certain claims, especially when the state rule is procedural and not intrinsically tied to the substantive rights at issue.
• Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen Local 760 v. Morley
  378 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a demand is not a prerequisite to filing suit under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c), and the Washington statute of limitations does not apply to the examination of records required to be kept for five years under 29 U.S.C. § 436.
• OLD Kent Bank & Tr. Co. v. United States
  362 F.2d 444· 6th Cir.· 1966-06-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that state court adjudications are not binding on federal courts when they are collusive, meaning the primary motive is to avoid federal tax liability.
• Hargrave v. OKI Nursery, Inc.
  646 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court, having acquired personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim under state long-arm statute, has the power to adjudicate all related claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if state law would limit state courts to only the clai
• Ga. Power Co. v. 54.20 Acres OF Land
  563 F.2d 1178· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 15×
  The dissenting judge argues that state law, not federal common law, should govern the measure of compensation in a federal eminent domain action brought by a licensee under the Federal Power Act, as there is no significant federal interest to displace state law.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near Chicago v. McDONNEL Douglas Corp.
  803 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of the decedent's income taxes is relevant to calculating pecuniary damages in a wrongful death action under Arizona law, and that a jury should be instructed that its award of damages for lost future wages is not subject to federal income taxation.
• Cohn v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  784 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying its Commerce Clause holding retroactively, and that the New Jersey tolling statute's invalidation should apply nonretroactively based on the Chevron test.
• Keesee v. Bank of Am., NA
  371 F. Supp. 2d 1370· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-01 ·cited 5×
  Florida Statute § 768.79, which mandates attorney's fees for a prevailing defendant if a settlement offer is rejected, does not apply to federal question cases, as it conflicts with the federal standard for awarding fees under Title VII.
• The Royal Bank OF Canada v. Trentham Corp.
  665 F.2d 515· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an intervening change in Texas law, specifically the adoption of the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act with a reciprocity requirement, required vacating the district court's judgment and remanding for reconsideration, even though the Act b
• Basil Stewart v. DOW Chem. Co.
  865 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the product liability claims on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as an adequate alternative forum existed and the balance of private and public interests favored dismissal.
• Morgan v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  446 F.2d 929· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-10
  The federal court should abstain from deciding the case until the Kansas state courts determine the application of K.S.A. § 59-513 to the widow's claim for insurance proceeds.