Disregarding Precedent in Minnesota Choice of Law: Nesladek v. Ford Motor Company
Loading...
Authors
Schultz, Julie A.
Issue Date
1996
Volume
29
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|Choice-of-law conflicts typically arise when lawsuits implicate the laws of two or more states. When more than one state has an interest in the litigation, the conflict cannot be resolved simply by using the choice-of-law rules of any of the states involved. Thus, the legal community often faces the critical issue of determining which law a federal court sitting in diversity should apply.|In 1941, the United States Supreme Court announced the general rule that the proper function of a federal court is to ascertain and apply the law of the state where the court sits. Application of this rule causes confusion, because there is no uniformity among the states regarding choice-of-law rules.|The confusion in this area was recently demonstrated by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nesladek v. Ford Motor Company. In Nesladek, the Eighth Circuit failed to follow previous decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court regarding the conflicts of law issue. By ignoring past decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit erroneously determined that Nebraska law should be applied to the instant case, thus barring the claim at issue. The Eighth Circuit rationalized its holding by following the decision of an intermediate state court as well as other cases dealing with contracts rather than torts...
Description
Citation
29 Creighton L. Rev. 1237 (1995-1996)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law