1 Stat. 73, 78 (1789), in order to further the objective, also inherent in the Commerce Clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 3, of avoiding risks of local prejudice or restrictions harmful to the Union. This does not affect the content of applicable law, be its source state or federal, which is to be applied evenhandedly by all courts. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). 3 . Charlebois involved a contract specifying that the work was to be done by a licensed party; such a written provision is an additional safeguard but hardly a sine qua non. 4 . For discussion of medieval guild restraints leading to substitution of the concept of the open market, see Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558, 582-601, 104 S.Ct. 1989, 2002-2012, 80 L.Ed.2d 590 (1984) (dissenting opinion) (<HOLDING>). For more modern applications, see, e.g., FMC
holding habitual sentence rendered guidelines scoresheet irrelevant holding irrelevant here holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal holding that the plaintiffs assertion that he neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known about the governments possible liability for his injury was irrelevant to accrual of his ftca claim holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing defendant to present evidence of his subjective belief regarding his status as habitual offender because his belief was irrelevant to offense of driving as habitual offender