SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Conflict of Laws Keyed to Brilmayer
Ferens v. John Deere Co.
Citation:
494 U.S. 516 (1989)Facts
While working with a combine harvester on his farm in Pennsylvania, Albert Ferens allegedly lost his hand when it became caught in the combine. The combine was manufactured by Deere & Company (“Deere”). Albert did not file a tort suit, and Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations expired. In the third year, he and his wife sued Deere in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations had not yet run for his contract and warranty claims. The district court had diversity jurisdiction because Albert and his wife are Pennsylvania residents and Deere is incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Illinois.
Albert and his wife filed a second diversity suit against Deere in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging negligence and products liability. Albert and his wife brought suit in Mississippi district court because they knew that the federal court in the exercise of diversity jurisdiction would apply the same choice of law rules that Mississippi state courts would apply if they were deciding the case. A Mississippi court would rule that Pennsylvania substantive law controlled the personal injury claim, but that Mississippi’s own law governed the limitation period.
Albert and his wife then moved under Title 28 §1404(a) to transfer the action to the federal court in Pennsylvania on the ground that Pennsylvania was a more convenient forum. Deere did not oppose, and the Mississippi district court granted the §1404(a) motion. The Pennsylvania district court consolidated the transferred tort action with Albert’s pending warranty action, but did not honor the Mississippi statute of limitations. The court ruled that because Albert had moved for transfer as plaintiffs, the rule in Van Dusen did not apply. As a result, the district court dismissed the tort action. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
Topic Resources
Topic Outline 