Legal Opinion
Long v. Morris
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided May 21, 1942No. 7932PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Per curiam
This case was tried and disposed of below upon the assumption that the rights of the parties to the suit were to be governed according to the law of Pennsylvania. The suit was in a federal court (sitting in Pennsylvania) whose jurisdiction rested upon diversity of citizenship. The law (parol evidence rule) pertinent to the establishment of the contract in suit relates to matter of substance. 3 Beale, Conflict of Laws (1935) § 599.1. The rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, therefore,' attaches. The requirement that, where federal…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Universal Products Co. v. EmersonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1935
- Marcus v. Heralds of LibertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Parkway Baking Co. v. Freihofer Baking Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Ralph E. Mueller and Eugene D. Devane, Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Hubbard Milling Company, Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
- McLouth Steel Corp. v. Mesta MacHine Co. Foster v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (Landis Tool Co., Third-Party Defendant)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Rolle Mfg. Co. v. Marco Chemicals, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1950
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.