When sitting in diversity jurisdiction, must a federal court apply federal equitable principles when deciding state law claims, even if state law may provide a different outcome? That was the question before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. Although the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion relies on “seventy-five years” of unchanged law, the opinion joins a long list of cases that continue to help clarify the tenets from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins and inform the courts and practitioners on the relationship between state and federal authority in diversity jurisdiction.
Ruth Dapper & Bryce Young,
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol96/iss2/1