Citation network
Sun Oil Co. Vs. Wortman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1988
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 717 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Sun Oil Co. v. WortmanSearch
-
U.S. 717 (1988) Sun Oil Co. v. WortmanSearch
-
not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause by applying its own statute of limitations. The holding of M'Elmoyle v. CohenSearch
-
favor of the modern understanding that statutes of limitations are substantive -- as exemplified by Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSearch
-
court's conclusion that such an agreement was implied by petitioner's undertaking with the FPC. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. StahlSearch
-
and Whitehall Gil Co. v. BoagniSearch
-
of the Supreme Court of Kansas that it is liable for interest on certain previously suspended gas royalties. Wortman v. SunSearch
-
and thereafter the average prime rate compounded quarterly. The trial court relied on Shutts v. PhillipsSearch
-
See 222 Kan. at 562-565, 567 P.2d at 1317-1319. The principles of Shutts I were reaffirmed in Shutts v. PhillipsSearch
-
The original decision of the trial court in this case was then affirmed on the strength of Shutts II in Wortman v. SunSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Kansas Supreme Court for application of the governing law of the other States to those claims. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSearch
-
in Wortman I and remanded it for reconsideration in light of our decision in Shutts III. Sun Oil Co. v. WortmanSearch
-
were timely. Page 486 U. S. 722 The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the first of these holdings in Shutts v. PhillipsSearch
-
to claims that, in their substance, are and must be governed by the law of a different State. See, e.g., Wells v. SimondsSearch
-
M'Elmoyle v. CohenSearch
-
Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
a procedural matter for purposes of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Petitioner initially argues that M'Elmoyle v. CohenSearch
-
the rule in international law at the time the Constitution was adopted. This is indisputably correct, see Le Roy v. CrowninshieldSearch
-
was longer than the limitations period of the State whose substantive law governed the merits of the claim. See Nash v. TupperSearch
-
Cai. 402, 412-413 (N.Y. 1803) (citing unreported 1795 New York case, Page 486 U. S. 725 Page v. CableSearch
-
Pearsall v. DwightSearch
-
Ruggles v. KeelerSearch
-
Graves v. Graves'sSearch
-
Medbury v. HopkinsSearch
-
Le Roy v. CrowninshieldSearch
-
Hawkins v. Barney'sSearch
-
bar of the statute does not extinguish the underlying right, but merely causes the remedy to be withheld. See Little v. BluntSearch
-
See also Wetzell v. BussardSearch
-
to allow its courts to provide a remedy, even though the jurisdiction where the right arose would not. See Graves v. Graves'sSearch
-
diversity jurisdiction, where we have held that statutes of limitations are substantive, see Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSearch
-
by the purposes for which the dichotomy is drawn. In the context of our Erie jurisprudence, see Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
as procedural for conflict of laws purposes, those States can themselves adopt a rule to that effect, e.g., Heavner v. UniroyalSearch
-
Jackman v. RosenbaumSearch
-
that is clearly established and that has been brought to the court's attention. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. GoldSearch
-
Western Life Indemnity Co. v. RuppSearch
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. MeltonSearch
-
Banholzer v. NewSearch
-
Such an agreement need not be express, but can be inferred from conduct. See Preston Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc. v. Bio-ZymeSearch
-
Petitioner's reliance on Phillips Petroleum Page 486 U. S. 732 Co. v. StahlSearch
-
owed. See Webster Drilling Co. v. SterlingSearch
-
as to liability for interest and the rate to be paid. Concerning liability, petitioner relies on Whitehall Oil Co. v. BoagniSearch
-
Wurzlow v. PlacidSearch
-
such a stipulation, or that an implied agreement would not be found in the circumstances of this case. Cf. Boutte v. ChevronSearch
-
of constitutional command, rather than leaving enforcement to the vagaries of the forum's view of comity. See Estin v. EstinSearch
-
he precise question now presented appears to have been decided in only a single case, New York v. CoeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial