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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The accuracy of this statement, that the substantive-procedural dividing line is the same for cases of trial of Federal Employers' Liability Act rights in state courts as in federal court trials of non-federal rights in diversity cases, 2 with particular regard to the right to a jury, is the subject of inquiry here. As a further development of this subject we must also consider the extent to which state rules may affect the right to jury in federal courts, and, conversely, what control the federal government may exercise over states' uses of the jury. As a starting point, it may be well to note that in both federal diversity cases and Liability Act trials in state courts, the courts have generally accepted substantive and procedural tests as an adequate generalization of the rule to be applied when deciding whether state or federal law is to be applied to a given subject. Both the opinion of the court and the dissent speak of this division in Erie V. Tompkins. And the great majority of courts have readily ac-

The Right to a Jury Trial in FELA Actions in State Courts