[John Beresford Tipton]

A federal court sitting in a diversity case, i.e. between residents of different states applies the state substantive law (of the state which has the closer nexus to the litigation). This was decided by the US Supreme court before the War in a famous case called Erie v. Thompkins.

[inquest]

A federal court sitting in a diversity case, i.e. between residents of different states applies the state substantive law (of the state which has the closer nexus to the litigation). This was decided by the US Supreme court before the War in a famous case called Erie v. Thompkins.

That's an awfully bizarre rule. One would think that due process would require that the defendant in the suit be subject to the laws of his state, not the state of whoever doesn't like what he's doing. It's like saying we should be subject to the Sharia if we disparage Mohammed.