Erie doctrine in Texas

2001In other words, "[t]he 'savings to suitors' clause of 28 U.S.C. 1333(1) permits state courts to adjudicate maritime actions 'constrained by the 'reverse-Erie' doctrine which requires that substantive remedies afforded by States conform to governing federal maritime standards.'" Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran , 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex. 1991) (quoting Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire , 477 U.S. 207 (1986)).

1999The court noted that [pjursuant to the ‘savings to suitors’ clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the “reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards.’ Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 301 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991

2008See Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 222-23 , 106 S.Ct. 2485 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986) ("Stated another way, the 'savings to suitors' clause allows state courts to entertain in personam maritime causes of action, but in such cases the extent to which state law may be used to remedy maritime injuries is constrained by a so-called 'reverse- Erie' doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards."). 52 .

2008See Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 222-23 , 106 S.Ct. 2485 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986) ("Stated another way, the 'savings to suitors' clause allows state courts to entertain in personam maritime causes of action, but in such cases the extent to which state law may be used to remedy maritime injuries is constrained by a so-called 'reverse- Erie' doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards."). 52 .

2021See Passmore v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 823 F.3d 292 , 15 296–98 (5th Cir. 2016) (characterizing section 74.351 as a procedural requirement and, per the Erie doctrine, rejecting its applicability in federal court in favor of federal procedural rules).

2021See Passmore v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 823 F.3d 292 , 15 296–98 (5th Cir. 2016) (characterizing section 74.351 as a procedural requirement and, per the Erie doctrine, rejecting its applicability in federal court in favor of federal procedural rules).

2014Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453 , 114 S.Ct. 981, 988 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (“Uniformity of process ... is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed to apply in all the courts of the world.”); In re GlobalSanteFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477, 485 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (“[F]ed-eral maritime law follows a ‘reverse Erie’ doctrine of sorts, employing the use of substantive federal maritime law in state courts but recognizing that state procedural law can be followed.”); Mar.

2014Ed. 2d 285 (1994) (“Uniformity of process . . . is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed to apply in all the courts of the world.”); In re GlobalSanteFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477, 485 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“[F]ederal maritime law follows a ‘reverse Erie’ doctrine of sorts, employing the use of substantive federal maritime law in state courts but recognizing that state procedural law can be followed.”); Mar.

2014Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex.1998) (“When a state court hears an admiralty case, that court occupies essentially the same position occupied by a federal court sitting in diversity: the state court must apply substantive federal maritime law but follow state procedure.”).

2014Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex. 1998) (“When a state court hears an admiralty 2 In Billiot, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to compel the payment of maintenance at a particular daily rate. 465 F. Supp. at 1265 .

1999The court noted that [pjursuant to the ‘savings to suitors’ clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the “reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards.’ Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 301 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991

1993Pursuant to the “savings to suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the “ ‘reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards.” Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223 , 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg, Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 §.Ct. 301, 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991).

1999The court noted that [pjursuant to the ‘savings to suitors’ clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the “reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards.’ Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 301 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991

1993Pursuant to the "savings to suitors" clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the "`reverse-Erie' doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards." Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223 , 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg, Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 301 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991).

2015Therefore, in Priester, the Fifth Circuit was bound by the APPELLANT’S BRIEF CAUSE NO.: NO. 03-14-00721-CV PAGE 20 OF 25 decisions of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution. 28 U.S.C §16525; Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981); Erie R.R., 304 U.S. at 78 . 5.16 However, the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the Erie doctrine.

2015Therefore, in Priester, the Fifth Circuit was bound by the APPELLANT’S BRIEF CAUSE NO.: NO. 03-14-00721-CV PAGE 20 OF 25 decisions of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution. 28 U.S.C §16525; Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981); Erie R.R., 304 U.S. at 78 . 5.16 However, the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the Erie doctrine.

2016Forum selection agreements have been enforceable in federal courts since Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Corporation.' Bremen, an admiralty case with an English forum-selection clause, was not controlling for a federal court faced with a forum-selection clause naming another federal court.'0 ' Clauses that created an intra-federal conflict were first considered in Stewart Organization,Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation.1 02 At the court of appeals level, the Eleventh Circuit had conducted an Erie analysis and determined that federal common law (Bremen) governed because the issue was not contract, but venue,

2016Forum selection agreements have been enforceable in federal courts since Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Corporation.' Bremen, an admiralty case with an English forum-selection clause, was not controlling for a federal court faced with a forum-selection clause naming another federal court.'0 ' Clauses that created an intra-federal conflict were first considered in Stewart Organization,Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation.1 02 At the court of appeals level, the Eleventh Circuit had conducted an Erie analysis and determined that federal common law (Bremen) governed because the issue was not contract, but venue,

2016Forum selection agreements have been enforceable in federal courts since Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Corporation.' Bremen, an admiralty case with an English forum-selection clause, was not controlling for a federal court faced with a forum-selection clause naming another federal court.'0 ' Clauses that created an intra-federal conflict were first considered in Stewart Organization,Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation.1 02 At the court of appeals level, the Eleventh Circuit had conducted an Erie analysis and determined that federal common law (Bremen) governed because the issue was not contract, but venue,

2016Forum selection agreements have been enforceable in federal courts since Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Corporation.' Bremen, an admiralty case with an English forum-selection clause, was not controlling for a federal court faced with a forum-selection clause naming another federal court.'0 ' Clauses that created an intra-federal conflict were first considered in Stewart Organization,Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation.1 02 At the court of appeals level, the Eleventh Circuit had conducted an Erie analysis and determined that federal common law (Bremen) governed because the issue was not contract, but venue,

2016Co., 926 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying Bremen to Saudi foreign forum clause). 1999] PARALLEL LITIGATION 933 Haynsworth v. The Corporation was a suit by "names," Lloyd's underwriters, against Lloyd's for various wrongs.'235 Several actions were filed in various federal courts throughout the United States; two were consolidated for this opinion regarding dismissal based on a forum clause designating England.1116 The Fifth Circuit distinguished between the two cases in that one was based on a federal question (securities fraud) and the other on diversity.1231 7 The court pointed out tha

2016See also Stamm v. Barclays Bank of New York, 153 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1998); Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 148 F.3d 1285 (11 th Cir. 1998); Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1997); Allen v. Lloyd's ofLondon, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1996); Shell v. R.W.

2016See also Stamm v. Barclays Bank of New York, 153 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1998); Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 148 F.3d 1285 (11 th Cir. 1998); Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1997); Allen v. Lloyd's ofLondon, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1996); Shell v. R.W.

2015Therefore, in Priester, the Fifth Circuit was bound by the APPELLANT’S BRIEF CAUSE NO.: NO. 03-14-00721-CV PAGE 20 OF 25 decisions of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution. 28 U.S.C §16525; Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981); Erie R.R., 304 U.S. at 78 . 5.16 However, the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the Erie doctrine.

2015Therefore, in Priester, the Fifth Circuit was bound by the APPELLANT’S BRIEF CAUSE NO.: NO. 03-14-00721-CV PAGE 20 OF 25 decisions of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution. 28 U.S.C §16525; Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981); Erie R.R., 304 U.S. at 78 . 5.16 However, the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the Erie doctrine.

2014Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453 , 114 S.Ct. 981, 988 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (“Uniformity of process ... is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed to apply in all the courts of the world.”); In re GlobalSanteFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477, 485 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (“[F]ed-eral maritime law follows a ‘reverse Erie’ doctrine of sorts, employing the use of substantive federal maritime law in state courts but recognizing that state procedural law can be followed.”); Mar.

2014Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453 , 114 S.Ct. 981, 988 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (“Uniformity of process ... is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed to apply in all the courts of the world.”); In re GlobalSanteFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477, 485 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (“[F]ed-eral maritime law follows a ‘reverse Erie’ doctrine of sorts, employing the use of substantive federal maritime law in state courts but recognizing that state procedural law can be followed.”); Mar.

1999The court noted that [pjursuant to the ‘savings to suitors’ clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over maritime actions, constrained by the “reverse-Erie’ doctrine which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the States conform to governing federal maritime standards.’ Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 223, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2494 , 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); see also Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 301 , 116 L.Ed.2d 245 (1991

1984Although not specifically ruling on this issue, the Fifth Circuit stated in Southern National Bank of Houston v. Crateo, Inc., 458 F.2d 688, 696 (5th Cir.1972): In the case at bar, we are bound by the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive law of the State of Texas.

1984Although not specifically ruling on this issue, the Fifth Circuit stated in Southern National Bank of Houston v. Crateo, Inc., 458 F.2d 688, 696 (5th Cir.1972): In the case at bar, we are bound by the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive law of the State of Texas.