|
|
|
|
|
| Professor's
Reply: |
Incorrect!
|
| |
|
No. You are assuming that New York common law was
more favorable to trespassers than Pennsylvania law and that a court
in New York would apply New York law to a tort claim that arose in
Pennsylvania. Both of these assumptions are false.
|
|
Go Back to Question 1
|
| Q1.A.Now,
according to the opinion, what is the "oft-challenged doctrine" of
Swift v. Tyson, and how did Tompkins attempt to take advantage
of it?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case of Swift v. Tyson held that
federal courts could apply general legal principles in diversity
cases, rather than local or state law. Tompkins knew that his case was
a loser under state law, so he sued in federal court to take advantage
of this way around unfavorable state law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
