Talk:Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania High‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Uh oh. This case wasn't listed on the U.S. Supreme Court case list so I thought I should create the article. Then I just realized that this case is on Wikipedia under another name. But I have other things to work on so I don't have time right now to merge this mess.

--Coolcaesar 04:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 12:27, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Merged articles

This article currently represents a merger between my own work and the excellent (and in many respects more comprehensive) work done by Coolcaesar, under the name of 'Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, the edit history for which can be found here.[1] -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 02:27, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

and a very good job. the article helped clarify the issues of this case that I found obscure and confusing in Urofsky's otherwise excellent biography of Brandeis. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.27 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez...I'm not sure, but I think I wrote a general article under the heading "Erie doctrine" just slightly before this one in April sometime. I would like the person who wrote this to take a look at it and make edits. Keep in mind I was trying to be general enough that public could follow Erie, and I did not want to get too bogged down with citation of cases...Byrd, Hanna's Twins...etc.

=====

I am pretty sure end of the holding is wrong. It should say "Supreme Court reversed and remanded to NY Southern District Federal Court."

I think it is completely accurate to talk about forum shopping as that is a term that courts use all the time. It is probably more accurate, however, to substitute "federal common law" for judge made law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.216.175 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Dredd?

I'm finding the repeated use of "judge-made law", & the "clever forum shopping', a bit POV. Does it bear changing? If so, to what? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Judge-made law" and "forum shopping" are both neutral terms of art commonly used in the American legal community. Judge-made law simply refers to legal precedent as made by judges under the rule of stare decisis, as opposed to positive law enacted in the form of statutes by legislatures or promulgated in the form of regulations by executive branch agencies. This is what distinguishes common law from civil law. In contrast, in civil law systems, the job of a judge is to merely carry out the will of the legislature, and they are not bound by the decisions of judges who came before them.

Forum shopping refers to the tendency of litigants to pick the most optimal forum available to them under the current civil procedure regime. Both terms are used by judges and law professors all the time.

There is no POV in the passages you refer to, which I drafted. This is how Erie is taught in civil procedure courses in law schools across the United States and summarized in books by professors such as the famous Joseph Glannon. The distaste of Brandeis and his colleagues for the mess engendered by Swift and its progeny is inherent in the Erie opinion itself. I drafted the article to help a nonlawyer audience understand why the Erie decision came out the way it did. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are legitimate in theory, but can be misused and are sometimes loaded and inflammatory. In this application, it does not appear that they are misused to me. I'd like to hear from the person who posted this if he thinks they are, and why. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a matter of experience. When I hear those terms used, it's usually perjorative, as if judges are doing something beyond their correct & accepted role, & lawyers are gaming the system somehow. It may be different within the legal community. The trouble I have is, the average reader is, like me, not a lawyer or law student, & is likely reacting to the same perjoratives. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I don't know how this got past my watchlist & not replied to for so long...)[reply]

so what happened to Harry Tompkins?

His dominant arm was crushed and he was probably only marginally employable for the rest of his life, even though all sides to this case admitted that the railroad was negligent. He was no doubt surprised that a long-established rule, which he had been relying on, was suddenly changed. A missing part to this story. 47.20.160.104 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)captcrisis[reply]