# American Dredging Co. v. Miller

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 23, 1994 · 510 U.S. 443

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432944

## Case

- **Full name:** American Dredging Co. v. Miller
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 23, 1994
- **Citations:** 510 U.S. 443; 114 S. Ct. 981; 127 L. Ed. 2d 285; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1870
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Souter
- **Judges:** Scalia, Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 585 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432944

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that to the extent we [the Court] have continued to recognize that federal courts have the power to dismiss damages actions under the common-law forum non conve-niens doctrine, we [the Court] have done so only in “cases where the alternative forum is abroad.”
- concluding that the state where “a substantial amount, if not all, of the alleged culpable conduct occurred . . . has a stronger public interest in adjudicating this dispute”
- characterizing the state doctrine of forum non conveniens as "procedural rather than substantive" and noting that "[ujniformity of process (beyond the rudimentary elements of procedural fairness) is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed…
- characterizing the state doctrine of forum non conveniens as “procedural rather than substantive” and noting that “[u]niformity of process (beyond the rudimentary elements of procedural fairness) is assuredly not what the law of admiralty seeks to achieve, since it is supposed…
- discussing that under the federal doctrine of foium non conveniens, a court may dismiss the case when trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness to a defendant out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, or because of the court’s own administrative concerns

## Opinion text

Justice Souter,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court because I agree that in most cases the characterization of a state rule as substantive *458 or procedural will be a sound surrogate for the conclusion that would follow from a more discursive pre-emption analysis. The distinction between substance and procedure will, however, sometimes be obscure. As to those close cases, how a given rule is characterized for purposes of determining whether federal maritime law pre-empts state law will turn on whether the state rule unduly interferes with the federal interest in maintaining the free flow of maritime commerce.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432944. Public record. Not legal advice.