In Re the Exxon Valdez, Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping Company, and United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the basis of a federal court’s jurisdiction over a state law claim is irrelevant for Erie purposes; where state law supplies the rule of the decision, the courts apply that law
• finding that Erie 's central holding applies to supplemental jurisdiction cases
• finding that Erie’s central holding applies to supplemental jurisdiction cases
• finding that Erie's holding applies to supplemental jurisdiction cases
• reversing a district court’s application of the federal rate to prejudgment interest as the plaintiff’s “substantive claim arose under Alaska state law only,” so his “claim for prejudgment interest arises out of, and must be analyzed under, state law as well”
• “It is well settled that prejudgment interest is a substantive aspect of a plaintiff’s claim, rather than a merely procedural mechanism.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).