Berk v. Choy · ¶56

Defendants' reliance on Woods is similarly unavailing. There, we held that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply a Mississippi law prohibiting out-of-state corporations from bringing suit in the State unless they designated an agent for service of process. 337 U. S., at 536, n. 1. Mississippi's law was enacted to ensure that only those out-of-state corporations that consented to being sued in Mississippi had the privilege of accessing Mississippi's courts. See ibid. In other words, Mississippi's law had a broad substantive purpose and effect that went well beyond what the Federal Rules addressed. That was why we had to wade through “Erie's murky waters” to decide the conficts question that case presented. See Shady Grove, 559 U. S., at 398; see also Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938). Delaware's affidavit requirement, by contrast, is plainly procedural in scope and…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.