Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wells Vs. Simonds Abrasive Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 18, 1953

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

71 entries 9 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Hughes Vs. Fetter US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1951
  2. Bacon Vs. Howard US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  3. Western Union Telegraph Co. Vs. Brown US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1914
  4. Engel Vs. Davenport US Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1926
  5. Mcelmoyle Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1839
  6. Gulf Oil Corp. Vs. Gilbert US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1947
  7. Guaranty Trust Co. Vs. York US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1945
  8. Swift Vs. Tyson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1842
  9. Relied / Followed
  10. Wells v. Simonds
    Search
  11. Abrasive Co. - 345 U.S. 514 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Wells v. Simonds
    Search
  12. Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514 (1953) Wells v. Simonds
    Search
  13. foreign statute creating a substantive right unknown to the common law. Pp. 345 U. S. 517 -518. (c) Engel v. Davenport
    Search
  14. U. S. 609 , and First Nat. Bank v. United
    Search
  15. of the Federal Constitution. The states are free to adopt such rules of conflict of laws as they choose, Kryger v. Wilson
    Search
  16. the statute of limitations of the forum to a foreign substantive right did not deny full faith and credit, McElmoyle v. Cohen
    Search
  17. Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe
    Search
  18. for constitutional distinctions under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We agree with the respondent that Engel v. Davenport
    Search
  19. Our decisions in Hughes v. Fetter
    Search
  20. U. S. 609 (1951), and First National Bank v. United
    Search
  21. F.2d 814 (1952). See also Quinn v. Simonds
    Search
  22. Cf. dissenting opinion by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe
    Search
  23. Cristilly v. Warner
    Search
  24. Conn. 461, 88 A. 711, overruled on another ground, Daury v. Ferraro
    Search
  25. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Burkhart
    Search
  26. Negaubauer v. Great
    Search
  27. White v. Govatos
    Search
  28. Tieffenbrun v. Flannery
    Search
  29. Rosenzweig v. Heller
    Search
  30. as to liability and as to limitation. The respondent relies upon the line of cases that began with Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  31. that this result depended on the New York law of conflicts, which is not even paid the respect of mention. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  32. U. S. 542 , 234 U. S. 547 . See also Slater v. Mexican
    Search
  33. Cardozo, J. in Loucks v. Standard
    Search
  34. Stat. 812, 843. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor
    Search
  35. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor
    Search
  36. that it does differ from that of the forum. But that disparity does not cause the type of evil aimed at in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  37. These are broad and imprecise, and involve such considerations as the state of the court's docket. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
    Search
  38. measure of damages, limitations, admission of evidence, conflict of laws and other doctrines, see Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  39. non conveniens route opens up possibilities of conflict, confusion, and injustice greater than anything Swift v. Tyson
    Search
  40. Court not by grace of Pennsylvania, but by authority of Congress, and what I said in First National Bank of Chicago v. United
    Search
  41. Air Lines, 342 U. S. 396 , 342 U. S. 398 , seems to me applicable here. I had supposed, before Hughes v. Fetter
    Search
  42. Page 345 U. S. 523 be tried in accordance with the law of the place of the wrong. Neither Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  43. U. S. 99 , nor Ragan v. Merchants
    Search
  44. the state of the forum along with the right is a more difficult question in the light of our precedents. McElmoyle v. Cohen
    Search
  45. were required to conform to local rules of procedure, although often independent of local substantive law under Swift v. Tyson
    Search
  46. substantive law is. But, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  47. on which McElmoyle v. Cohen
    Search
  48. Ragan v. Merchants
    Search
  49. forum must apply a foreign statute of limitations to a contract case. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe
    Search
  50. U. S. 214 . Subsequently, Mr. Justice Holmes twice wrote for the Court to the same effect. In Davis v. Mills
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial