Paul Burke v. Air Serv International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that District of Columbia’s requirement that expert testimony accompany certain claim applied notwithstanding Evidence Rule 702
• explaining that, under Erie. R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law when sitting in diversity jurisdiction
• noting that when “there is a Federal Rule . . . , the ‘scope’ of which is ‘sufficiently broad to control the issue before the Court,’” (quoting Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 749–50 (1980)
• applying Erie doctrine to District of Columbia

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).