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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
The discussion of common law in terms of transcendant v. local is obscure and confusing. The old common law of England, incorporated into US law by the Constitution, was a body of precepts from English case law while local rules would be something we would find cognizable as rules of civil procedure. In Swift we see the federal court apply its own rule of substantive law regarding a holder in due course. Is this what Brandeis found so offending in Swift in his decision in Erie v. Tompkins? Under diversity jurisdiction we go through a whole drill to determine which state's substantive law to apply? If the contract says it will be governed by Delaware law then the US court must follow its rules, its UCC iteration which might vary in some minute way from say Nebraska law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.27 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
