28 U.S.C. § 1652
State laws as rules of decision
The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 696
cases (63 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982).
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982). “Under the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652 , they must apply state law "except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide .”
DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983). “81-2386 argue that the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652 , mandates application of state statutes of limitations whenever Congress has provided none.”
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980). “" 28 U. S. C. § 1652 . And the All Writs Act authorizes this Court and lower federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987). “We have held that the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652 , requires application of state statutes of limitations unless "a timeliness rule drawn from elsewhere in federal law should be applied.”
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). “Even under the construction of the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652 , adopted in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet.”
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988). “I would therefore construe it to avoid the significant encouragement to forum shopping that will inevitably be provided by the interpretation the Court adopts today. II Since no federal statute or Rule of Procedure governs the validity of a forum-selection clause, the remaining…”
Comm'r v. Est. of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967). “These restrictive limitations clearly indicate the great care that Congress exercised in the drawing of the Act and indicate also a definite concern with the elimination of loopholes and escape hatches that might jeopardize the federal revenue.”
Richard L. Fowler v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 904 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2018). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1652 . Absent a contrary rule in the U.”
Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991). “See also 28 U. S. C. § 1652 ("The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the *227 United States, in…”
In the Matter of the Assessments for Tax Year 2012 of Certain Props., 2021 OK 7 (Okla. 2021). “§ 1367] court invoked the Rules of Decision Act [Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. § 1652], applied Florida jurisprudence on equity of awarding prejudgment interest, and denied interest to receiver in a clawback of ponzi profits).”
Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996). “" [6] Originally § 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Rules of Decision Act, now contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1652 , reads: "The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be…”
Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2013). “But a similarly difficult inquiry, which also bears on our analysis of the jurisdictional question, is whether the District Court properly applied governing choice-of-law principles under the Rules of Decision Act, see 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.