Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.

E354849

United States Supreme Court case civil procedure case class action case federal court case

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the conflict between federal procedural rules and state laws limiting class actions in federal diversity jurisdiction.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. canonical	1
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.	1
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010)	1

Statements (35)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ civil procedure case ⓘ class action case ⓘ federal court case ⓘ
appliedRule	United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ surface form: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
areaOfLaw	United States civil procedure ⓘ conflict of laws ⓘ federal courts ⓘ
citation	559 U.S. 393 ⓘ
context	federal diversity jurisdiction ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2010 ⓘ
defendant	Allstate ⓘ surface form: Allstate Insurance Company
effect	expanded availability of class actions in federal court despite some state restrictions ⓘ
holding	United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ surface form: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 applies in federal court and allows a class action even when a state law would bar the class action a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that directly conflicts with state law governs in federal court under the Rules Enabling Act ⓘ
issue	whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a class action in federal court when state law bars such class actions ⓘ whether a federal procedural rule valid under the Rules Enabling Act displaces a conflicting state law in diversity cases ⓘ
jurisdiction	U.S. federal courts ⓘ surface form: United States federal courts
legalSubject	Erie doctrine ⓘ Rules Enabling Act ⓘ class actions ⓘ conflict between federal rules and state law ⓘ diversity jurisdiction ⓘ federal civil procedure ⓘ
plaintiff	Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates ⓘ
proceduralPosture	putative class action filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction ⓘ
questionPresented	Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permit a class action in federal court when a state law prohibits such class actions for the claim at issue? ⓘ
relevance	important precedent on the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in diversity cases ⓘ significant case on the relationship between federal procedural rules and state substantive or procedural limitations ⓘ
stateLawInvolved	New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ⓘ surface form: New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 901(b) New York law ⓘ
termOfCourt	October Term 2009 ⓘ
typeOfDispute	insurance dispute ⓘ

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Rules Enabling Act → interpretedIn → Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. ⓘ

Erie doctrine → clarifiedByCase → Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. ⓘ

this entity surface form: Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2077 → interpretedIn → Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. ⓘ

this entity surface form: Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010)