Sun Oil Company v. Wortman

PETITIONER: Sun Oil Company
RESPONDENT: Wortman
LOCATION: City of Brookfield: City Hall

DOCKET NO.: 87-352
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 486 US 717 (1988)
ARGUED: Mar 22, 1988
DECIDED: Jun 15, 1988

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Sun Oil Company v. Wortman

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 22, 1988 in Sun Oil Company v. Wortman

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 15, 1988 in Sun Oil Company v. Wortman

Antonin Scalia:

-- in which these leases existed had to be governed by the laws of those States and not the law of Kansas.

Thereafter, the Kansas Supreme Court held, number one, that Kansas law govern the statute of limitations since that issue was procedural, and two, that on the substance of issues concerning what the rate of interest should be, the laws of the other States produce the same result that Kansas law would produce anyway.

Petitioner contends that both of those holdings violates -- violate the full faith and credit and Due Process Clause.

As it's more fully explained in the opinion we announced today, we reject petitioner's contentions and therefore affirm.

Concerning the use of Kansas law to govern the statute of limitations, we hold that the history and the original understanding of the clauses support the position taken previously by this Court that the use of the forum statute of limitations for choice of law purposes is permissible.

Such use of the four limitations period continues to be permissible since that traditional practice remains the general practice in state courts.

Concerning the Kansas Supreme Court's interpretations of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana law, we hold that those constructions do not violate the constitutional requirement that they not contradict clearly established law in the other state that has been brought to the rendering Court's attention.

Justice Brennan has filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which Justices Marshall and Blackmun have joined.

Justice O'Connor has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which the Chief Justice has joined.

Justice Kennedy took no part.