The facts were similar to the case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, also being a class action lawsuit in Kansas for overdue interest payments, with plaintiffs from all fifty U.S. states. Here, as opposed to applying its 'whole law,' Kansas applies its 5-year statute of limitations instead of the shorter Statutes of Limitations of Louisiana, Texas, or Oklahoma.
The majority opinion, by Justice Scalia, held that there can never be a violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process or Full Faith and Credit if a state interprets as procedural something that has been deemed procedural by states in general for hundreds of years. The rule in question being traditional, this was, therefore, a permissible practice.
A concurring opinion by Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, asserted that the Court laid down too broad a rule, and that assertions that something is procedural or substantive should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Where the law is partly procedural and partly substantive, the concurrence argued, the Court must weigh how much of each is implicated. In this case, there was no problem because Kansas is not limiting substantive rights granted by other states by allowing plaintiffs to bring these claims for a longer time, the presumption being that other states enact limitations designed to unburden their own courts.
A dissent by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, asserted that the Kansas Supreme Court violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause by ignoring statutory interest rates imposed by three other states.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the case.
External linksedit
Text of Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486U.S. 717 (1988) is available from:CourtListenerJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
wortman, 1988, conflict, laws, case, decided, united, states, supreme, court, supreme, court, united, statesargued, march, 1988decided, june, 1988full, case, namesun, company, wortmancitations486, more, 2117, 743holdingthe, constitution, does, application, for. Sun Oil Co v Wortman 486 U S 717 1988 was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court Sun Oil Co v WortmanSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 22 1988Decided June 15 1988Full case nameSun Oil Company v WortmanCitations486 U S 717 more 108 S Ct 2117 100 L Ed 2d 743HoldingThe Constitution does not bar application of the forum State s statute of limitations to claims governed by the substantive law of a different State Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunJohn P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyCase opinionsMajorityScalia joined by unanimous Part I Rehnquist White Stevens O Connor Part II Brennan White Marshall Blackmun Stevens Part III ConcurrenceBrennan joined by Marshall BlackmunConcur dissentO Connor joined by RehnquistKennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case Contents 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Rule 4 External linksFacts editThe facts were similar to the case of Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts also being a class action lawsuit in Kansas for overdue interest payments with plaintiffs from all fifty U S states Here as opposed to applying its whole law Kansas applies its 5 year statute of limitations instead of the shorter Statutes of Limitations of Louisiana Texas or Oklahoma Issue editDoes the use of Kansas law by the courts of the state of Kansas for all plaintiffs violate Fourteenth Amendment Due Process or the Full Faith and Credit clause Rule editThe majority opinion by Justice Scalia held that there can never be a violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process or Full Faith and Credit if a state interprets as procedural something that has been deemed procedural by states in general for hundreds of years The rule in question being traditional this was therefore a permissible practice A concurring opinion by Justice Brennan joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun asserted that the Court laid down too broad a rule and that assertions that something is procedural or substantive should be examined on a case by case basis Where the law is partly procedural and partly substantive the concurrence argued the Court must weigh how much of each is implicated In this case there was no problem because Kansas is not limiting substantive rights granted by other states by allowing plaintiffs to bring these claims for a longer time the presumption being that other states enact limitations designed to unburden their own courts A dissent by Justice O Connor joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist asserted that the Kansas Supreme Court violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause by ignoring statutory interest rates imposed by three other states Justice Kennedy took no part in the case External links editText of Sun Oil Co v Wortman 486 U S 717 1988 is available from CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Sun Oil Co v Wortman amp oldid 1175150373, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
