Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. について

Words near each other

Dictionary Lists

mini英和辞書

mini和英辞書

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]

スポンサードリンク

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. ：ウィキペディア英語版

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.

''Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.'', 446 U.S. 740 (1980), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law. The question in Walker is whether in a diversity action the federal court should follow state law or, alternatively, Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the state statute of limitations (SOL). The Court found no such conflict because a court’s refusal to apply the federal rule at issue would not in fact thwart some purpose the federal rule was intended to achieve. Favored treatment for federal procedural rules under the Rules Enabling Act is only appropriate when a rule is in fact applicable.
== Background information ==
The case dealt with a negligence claim brought by an Oklahoma plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the defendant, a foreign corporation having its principal place of business in a state other than Oklahoma. Plaintiff was injured August 22, 1975. The complaint was filed on August 19, 1977, and the summons was issued that day. However, service of process was not made on the respondent until December 1, 1977. On January 5, 1978, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the applicable Oklahoma Statute of Limitations. Though the action was filed within the two-year SOL, the action is only deemed commenced when the service of the summons is made on the respondent, which in this case occurred after the SOL. Okla. Stat., Tit. 12 § 95 (1971) does not deem the action "commenced" for the purposes of the statute of limitations until service of the summons on the defendant. However, if the complaint is filed within the limitations period, the action is deemed to have commenced from the date of filing if the plaintiff serves the defendant within 60 days, even though that service may occur outside the limitations period.
The District Court dismissed the complaint as being barred by the statute of limitations under the state law of Oklahoma on the grounds that state law applied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.」の詳細全文を読む

スポンサードリンク

翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース