" The court in this case overruled Justice Story's opinion in (*) Swift v. Tyson and announced that there's no such thing as "general federal common law."
The majority opinion in this case extensively quoted Justice Field's dissent in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Baugh, while Justice Butler's dissent argued that the court erred in ruling on the question at hand sua sponte. The decision in this case was recently applied to claim preclusion in Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin, and it was considered in light of the seventh amendment in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities. The court first clarified the test outlined in this case as "outcome-determinative" in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, but today courts apply either the Byrd or Hanna test depending on whether there's a "direct collision." The court in this case overruled Justice Story's opinion in (*) Swift v. Tyson and announced that there's no such thing as "general federal common law." For ten points name this landmark civil procedure case whose "doctrine" generally declares that federal courts operating under diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the forum state.
The majority opinion in this case extensively quoted Justice Field's dissent in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Baugh, while Justice Butler's dissent argued that the court erred in ruling on the question at hand sua sponte.
{Erie Railroad} Co. v. {Tompkins} [prompt on “{Tompkins}”]