Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶99

The other two cases are the products of a bygone legal era. See Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170 (1804); Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115 (1852). Both cases predated Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), and neither applied state law.Little involved the seizure of a vessel in the Caribbean and appears to have applied admiralty or general federal common law. See 2 Cranch, at 179. Mitchell concerned the seizure of a merchant's personal property in Mexico during the Mexican-American War. 13 How., at 128. It, too, appears to have applied general federal common law. See id., at 135–136.Thus, neither case addresses whether the Constitution preempts the application of state tort law to those carrying out federal wartime policies on a foreign military base.

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