Author: 174

Subject: Not from Google, but here's some from Westlaw:

There is no federal general common law and Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state, whether they be local or general in nature, be they commercial law or apart of the law of torts.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

_________

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *78, 58 S.Ct. 817, **822 (U.S. 1938)

____________

The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes.FN23 The doctrine rests upon the assumption that there is ‘a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute,’ that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what the rules of common law are; and that in the federal courts ‘the parties are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law’

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *79, 58 S.Ct. 817, **823 (U.S. 1938)

______________

The phrase “laws of the several states,” as used in statute requiring federal courts to apply laws of the several states except in matters governed by federal Constitution or statutes, held to include not only state statutory law, but also state decisions on questions of general law, in absence of any constitutional provision purporting to confer upon federal courts power of declaring substantive rules of common law applicable in a state. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

__________________

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692579)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692582)

This does NOT mean that there is no federal common law!

Here's a link describing a Yale law review article about federal common law:

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/107/107-2.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692615)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_common_law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692625)

I posted law review articles that discuss the existence of it. Why would they discuss the existence of it if it didn't exist???

Obviously I'm not saying that it exists because they SAY it exists.

Man you prove yet again that you are a supreme idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692649)

http://ilr.lls.edu/HOFFMAN.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692630)

PWN3D!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692639)

FINE I will go find a scotus opinion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692653)

there remain several areas of law where federal common law is allowed to continue, particularly where the Constitution of the United States gives the U.S. Congress power to make laws in an area, such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, and civil rights.

Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has also determined that federal courts are allowed to fashion common law rules where a significantly important federal interest exists. The case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), the court set forth three criteria for determining whether the court should create a federal common law rule:

Is there a federal competence to create law in this area—i.e. would Congress be able to adopt a law in such an area?

If there is federal competence, should state or federal law govern?

If federal law governs, should courts borrow state law or create a new federal rule?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_common_law"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692656)

you said, "it doesn't exist"

you = wrong

you = PWN3D!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692689)

What 'point' are you referring to? Your link made no sense.

You're an idiot, you got PWN3D, now go crawl off somewhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692718)

"In County of Oneida v Oneida Indian Nation (1985) 470 U.S. 226, 84 L. Ed. 2d 169, 105 S. Ct. 1245, the United States Supreme Court (1) held that the Oneidas could maintain a claim to be compensated for violation of their possessory rights on the basis of federal common law, but (2) reserved the question whether equitable considerations ought to limit the relief available."

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692667)

Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs., 543 U.S. 157 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692670)

Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs., 543 U.S. 157 (2004).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692680)

You completely fabricated this. I never said any such thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692698)

This is how 90% of genuine fights on this board get started.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692994)

Norfolk Southern Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692679)

Thanks for the congrats. I'm definitely ready to be done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692736)

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692685)

like copyright? that's one of several examples, already noted. the majority of what would be regarded as "copyright law" is not codified in any of the copyright acts, but rather has evolved as what is generally referred to as "common law." federal courts aren't filling trivial interstices in hightly specific statutes; they're doing exactly what state courts do when they make tort law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692707)

and if you go to a trial court seeking relief that has neither a statutory basis nor precdential case law to support it, that's an action that will be dismissed on the pleadings. there is no sense in which either modern state courts regard themselves as being empowered to make whatever law they please, or fedral courts are merely "interpreting" extensive statutory codifications at the margins. as a matter of degree federal statutes might generally be more detailed. but in those areas of law where there is federal preemption, federal courts are doing exactly what state courts are doing, even if you can cite some isolated bits of puffery that suggest they shouldn't be doing so,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692769)

There is NO STATE PERIOD where caselaw trumps a later-in-time state statute (assuming the statute is constitutional and otherwise valid). Just suggesting such a thing is preposterous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692805)

And I guarantee that whatever you eventually post to try to counter what I said, it will be something you misunderstood and are posting completely out of context.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692813)

And then you tried to make some lame excuse that common law is derived from statute and really isn't different from statute.

And now, when I point out that some common law has NO basis in statute, you just note that it is the exception - you don't even try to argue that I'm wrong anymore.

Wow - your position is just crumbling to nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692809)

of action. 534 U. S., at 75 (SCALIA, J., concurring)." (scalia)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692810)

Why don't you give us a link for that quote so we can explain to you what it means in context?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692876)

Now go back at the other posts I've given by OTHER supreme court justices who were writing OPINIONS and not interviews. And stop acting like an idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692888)

He DID say 'with very minor exceptions there is no federal common law' - but 'minor exceptions' is a relative term.

He was comparing it to the English system, and compared to it, our system has a lot less. That doesn't mean to say that we don't have any. And in fact we have quite a lot.

Scalia is probably confusing you because according to HIM there isn't much federal common law because judges are supposed to construe the constitution very strictly. In his view, judges shouldn't be making federal common law. But even he acknowledges that they do.

Seriously man give it a rest, read some SCOTUS cases that talk about it in depth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692903)

When you read a passage, remember to read the few words BEFORE and AFTER it as well to really get the full meaning. Pulling a few words out of context will only confuse your feeble mind.

I know you like to read as few words as possible, but try not to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692912)

He likes to find a passage that has the words he wants to see all together in one place, but doesn't have any understanding of what those words mean in relation to each other and the other words in the passage.

One dumb fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692874)

So you're saying it IS complicated, because judges and lawyers make it complicated to keep fees high right?

Funny, why haven't lawyers and judges in other areas caught on? Must all be dumb I guess.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692890)

well, other areas don't really lend themselves to needless complexity. for example, in tort law, duty is duty. and in the criminal law, intent is intent. only patent law gives you room to maneuver and inject needless complexity where it doesn't belong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692909)

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967)

You really need to get some therapy. Staying up all night, refusing to give up on this hopless crusade after EVERYONE has told you you're out of your mind - that must be indiciative of some kind of mental illness. Please get help - it actually isn't funny to crucify you any more. It is becomming absolutely tragic and pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693308)

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693035)

See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) a/k/a the "Bivens" of International Law. Also known to Justice Scalia as the epitomy of the Court's "never say never" jurisprudence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693024)

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693036)

You are an idiot, you have no credibility, and every time I see you post from now on I am going to post a link to this thread so that you can relive your humiliation over and over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693338)

I think if you just keep kicking the air, Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol will keep ramming his head into it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693048)