Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Moore v. Illinois Cenco — Opinion of the Court

As early as 1893, this court said: 'The construction given to a statute (of limitations) of a state by the highest judicial tribunal of such state is regarded as a part of the statute, and is as binding upon the courts of the United States as the text. If the highest judicial tribunal of a state adopt new views as to the proper construction of such a statute, and reverse its former decisions, this court will follow the latest settled adjudications.' [4] It was error for the court below to depart from the Mississippi Supreme Court's interpretation of the state statute of limitations.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Moore v. Illinois Cenco — Opinion of the Court

This difference in language, substituting 'may' for 'shall', was not, we think, an indication of a change in policy, but was instead a clarification of the law's original purpose. For neither the original 1926 Act, nor the Act as amended in 1934, indicates that the machinery provided for settling disputes was based on a philosophy of legal compulsion.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature