Question

Federal courts may hear cases that originate and really only pertain to state law when there is diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendant. The Gasperini case is one such case. In the case, the federal court was compelled to apply state law, not federal law. This is due to which famous case?

		Hanna v. Plumer
		Guaranty Trust v. New York
		Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electrical
		Erie R.R. v. Tompkins
		All of these cases stand for this proposition

In Smith v. Massachusetts, Justice Ginsberg bases her dissent upon what issue

		Due process
		Double jeopardy
		Right to counsel
		Self-incrimination
		Second amendment â firearmâ right

The best way to describe the relationship between the fifth and sixth amendments is

		The fifth amendment requires the defendant to request his/her rights and the sixth amendment tells the state how to apply those rights
		The sixth amendment articulates what the sate can do while the fifth amendment articulates what the state is prohibited from doing
		Both amendments deal with the police power of the state and how the state may exercise its rights to protect society
		The fifth amendment lays out the requirement of due process while the sixth articulates the particulars of that due process
		Both the fifth and sixth amendments rely on the right of privacy articulated in the fourth amendment

Complete this statement: the Seventh Amendment is most similar to which amendment in application:

		First
		Second
		Third
		Fourth
		Fifth

Answer 1

Federal courts may hear cases that originate and relly only pertain to state law when there is diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendant. The Gasperini case is one such case. In the case, the federal court was compelled to apply state law, not federal law. This is due to which famous case?

a) Hanna v. Plumer

b) Guaranty Trust v. New York

c) Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electrical

d) Erie R.R. v. Tompkins

e) All of these cases stand for this proposition

Answer 1:

Option ‘e’:

All of these cases stand for this proposition

Explanation:

Gasperini Vs. Center for Humanities Case in United States

Gasperini Case is based on all the above mentioned cases:

	Hanna v. Plumer
	Guaranty Trust v. New York
	Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electrical
	Erie R.R. v. Tompkins

Erie Doctrine:

The Erie Doctrine is based in US Supreme Court Case, Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins. According to this doctrine, when the issues arises whether to apply federal or state laws in a lawsuit, the federal courts must apply state law on issues of substantive law.

Therefore, all the four above mentioned famous cases are based this Doctrine of Erie.

Gasperini Case:

In Gasperini Case, the action was based in NewYork law but it was tried in federal court due to the reason that both the parties belong to diverse citizenship, was the issue the Court confronts in this case.

Background of the case: Petitioner Gasperini was a journalist, who filed a suit against the respondent Center for Humanities, Inc. in the US District Court for the Southern District of NewYork. The center conceded liability and damages were awarded. Center for Humanities moved for a new trial saying that the damages verdict was excessive. The district court, without comment denied the motion.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, held that New York’s law controlling compensation awards for excessiveness can be given effect, without detriment to the Seventh Amendment.