« Eco-Palms, Baby | Main | Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Six »
Friday, January 25, 2013
Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Five
Two more questions about the twin aims of Erie. Do they apply when a federal court entertains a state law action after having gotten personal jurisdiction over a party pursuant to the “100-mile bulge” in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(B) or through pendent personal jurisdiction?
That's what federal courts have assumed. But, once again, why uniformity with a forum state court when it could never have entertained the action, because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
Posted by Michael Steven Green on January 25, 2013 at 04:59 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017c364313e0970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Five:
Comments
I can't answer your question(s), but I can say this: I totally and unreservedly admire your persistence.
Posted by: SparkleMotion | Jan 25, 2013 6:02:31 PM
