Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
1988 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law under the Erie doctrine.[1] The question in Stewart was whether the federal venue transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),[2] occupied the field or whether Alabama law's unfavorable stance towards forum-selection clauses should instead be applied. The Court held that the federal statute governed the District Court's decision whether to give effect to the forum-selection clause.
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 29, 1988 Decided June 20, 1988 | |
Full case name | Stewart Organization, Inc., et al. v. Ricoh Corp., et al. |
Citations | 487 U.S. 22 (more) 108 S. Ct. 2239; 101 L. Ed. 2d 22; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2791 |
Case history | |
Prior | 779 F.2d 643 (11th Cir. 1985); vacated on rehearing en banc, 810 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1987); cert. granted, 484 U.S. 894 (1987). |
Holding | |
Federal law governed the District Court's decision whether to grant motion to transfer case to venue provided in contractual forum-selection clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy |
Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by O'Connor |
Dissent | Scalia |
Laws applied | |
28 U.S.C. § 1404 |