English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The ability of federal courts to hear, through the grant of diversity jurisdiction, cases typically found in state court jurisdiction has stirred controversy since the Judiciary Act of 1789. Whether federal judges presiding in diversity-of-citizenship cases are striving to eliminate the real or perceived biases in state courts against out-of-state parties and whether these same judges are applying the proper state law are of great concern. While these issues have been hotly contested, they have not been empirically tested. This article examines the votes of United States Courts of Appeals judges in tort diversity cases to test these claims. Through this analysis, it appears that these federal courts are in fact not only rendering unbiased decisions, but also settling these disputes based on applicable state law, thereby holding true to principles of federalism.

Resolution of Bias: Tort Diversity Cases in the United States Courts of Appeals