In the 1989 case Ferens et ux. v. John Deere Co., aka Deere & Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Deere, upholding a lower court's decision to apply Pennsylvania law rather than Mississippi law in a product liability lawsuit. The plaintiffs, residents of Pennsylvania, had purchased a defective piece of farm equipment from John Deere in their home state but were injured by it while working on land they owned in Mississippi. They filed suit against the company under Mississippi's more plaintiff-friendly laws despite having bought the machine and initially filing their claim in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that since all significant events giving rise to litigation occurred or should have been foreseen to occur within Pennsylvania, its substantive law should govern this diversity action even though trial was conducted following transfer under 28 U.S.C §1404(a) to Federal District Court for Southern District of Mississippi.

In the dissenting opinion for Ferens v. John Deere Co., Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted federal law. He contended that a plaintiff should not be allowed to choose a forum state, then apply another state’s statute of limitations to their advantage, as it undermines the purpose of diversity jurisdiction - which is meant to protect out-of-state defendants from potential bias in local courts. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "equitable tolling," stating this principle does not apply when plaintiffs deliberately manipulate filing procedures for strategic gain. Lastly, he expressed concern about forum shopping and its potential impact on judicial efficiency and fairness.