Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:53 pm

I have no idea what this case means, why its significant or how I should address is in my outline and overall analysis. I am lost. Help.

stayway
Posts: 1275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:38 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby stayway » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:06 pm

Didn't Gasperini merge Byrd and Hanna? aka Hybrid Modified Outcome Determinative Test?

I have this under my outline.

1. Byrd & Hanna merged
2. Likelihood that applying federal law will affect the outcome of the case viewed in light of the “twin aims” of Erie
a. Discouragement of forum-shopping
b. Avoidance of inequitable administration of laws
3. Federal interest in applying its rule
4. State interest in applying its rule

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm an 1L studying civ pro as well.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:09 pm

Oooh, your professor is a mean one for assigning this case.

Basically, I would analyze this case by dividing it up between the trial court and appellate court.

For the NY state law, it is the same in both courts, as it's basically a "deviates materially" standard.

However, for federal law, the trial court applies the "shocks the conscience" standard while the appellate court applies the "did the trial court abuse its discretion?" standard. The source of the law for the trial court's "shock" standard is from Rule 59 (a) while the appellate court's standard is from the 7th Amendment.

Now this is where the case gets confusing. Usually, once students see both level of courts deals with federal rules or constitution, they apply the Hannah Part II analysis where you use the "arguably procedural" test. However, the majority (this is where Scalia dissent disagrees with) in this case doesn't do this, as they actually interpreted both Rule 59 and the 7th Amendment as common law and proceeded to analyze the case using Hannah Part I analysis where they talk about the bound up question, policy concern and balancing of federal court's interests.

Now I am getting lazy, so I won't explain why they did it that way, but this should be able to get you going thinking about this case in the right way. A good hint would be to focus on what Rule 59 and the 7th Amendment actually say.

User avatar
onthecusp
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:08 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby onthecusp » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:21 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:I have no idea what this case means, why its significant or how I should address is in my outline and overall analysis. I am lost. Help.


It's not that important.

Know Hannah, know the Twin aims of Erie, know the Outcome determinative test, know the balance the interest test. You're good.

The main point in Gasperini was in diversity cases, the standard used to determine the excessiveness of awarded damages (itemized) is state law, and the Federal court is to leave it alone absent "abuse of discretion".

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:29 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:Oooh, your professor is a mean one for assigning this case.

Basically, I would analyze this case by dividing it up between the trial court and appellate court.

For the NY state law, it is the same in both courts, as it's basically a "deviates materially" standard.

However, for federal law, the trial court applies the "shocks the conscience" standard while the appellate court applies the "did the trial court abuse its discretion?" standard. The source of the law for the trial court's "shock" standard is from Rule 59 (a) while the appellate court's standard is from the 7th Amendment.

Now this is where the case gets confusing. Usually, once students see both level of courts deals with federal rules or constitution, they apply the Hannah Part II analysis where you use the "arguably procedural" test. However, the majority (this is where Scalia dissent disagrees with) in this case doesn't do this, as they actually interpreted both Rule 59 and the 7th Amendment as common law and proceeded to analyze the case using Hannah Part I analysis where they talk about the bound up question, policy concern and balancing of federal court's interests.

Now I am getting lazy, so I won't explain why they did it that way, but this should be able to get you going thinking about this case in the right way. A good hint would be to focus on what Rule 59 and the 7th Amendment actually say.


Why the hell are you talking about all of this irrelevant stuff? Trial court, etc? Who cares what the lower courts said?

For 1Ls, Gasperini simply tells you what to do when Erie runs up against a federal practice that derives from a Constitutional requirement. It basically tries to serve both interests by allow the district court to review jury damages awards per the state law.

It doesn't change the Hanna/Byrd analysis and isn't an important case.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:35 pm

rayiner wrote:Why the hell are you talking about all of this irrelevant stuff? Trial court, etc? Who cares what the lower courts said?


It's how we're taught in our Civ Pro class and we're expected to do a similar kind of cross-case legal reasoning analysis for our final exam, so no, what I wrote was not "irrelevant." The TC did not mention exactly what he wanted, so I gave him a more concrete analysis than "Gasperini applied state law instead of federal law."

Furthermore, your lack of courtesy in your post offended me, especially when I was trying to be helpful to the TC. I am expecting an apology from you soon.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:41 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:Why the hell are you talking about all of this irrelevant stuff? Trial court, etc? Who cares what the lower courts said?


It's how we're taught in our Civ Pro class and we're expected to do a similar kind of cross-case legal reasoning analysis for our final exam, so no, what I wrote was not "irrelevant." The TC did not mention exactly what he wanted, so I gave him a more concrete analysis than "Gasperini applied state law instead of federal law."

Furthermore, your lack of courtesy in your post offended me, especially when I was trying to be helpful to the TC. I am expecting an apology from you soon.


Generally speaking it's wrong to pick at the details of a case or go into a lower court's reasoning beyond what you need to understand the main opinion. The exceptions are in Con Law and when a particular case is extremely important. These issues will be clearly flagged by your professor.

In Erie Analysis Gasperini is not an important case. Your professor might have a particular fetish for it, but that's completely unusual.

Also, get over yourself.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:46 pm

rayiner wrote:Generally speaking it's wrong to pick at the details of a case or go into a lower court's reasoning beyond what you need to understand the main opinion. The exceptions are in Con Law and when a particular case is extremely important. These issues will be clearly flagged by your professor.

In Erie Analysis Gasperini is not an important case. Your professor might have a particular fetish for it, but that's completely unusual.

Also, get over yourself.


Again, you seemed to have glossed over the fact that I specifically said our civ pro prof expected us to perform the kind of analysis for our final exams. I sure as hell am not doing this for my contract or torts class. Maybe your civ pro prof teaches the material in a more conventional way, but I'm not taking his final exam.

While I will agree Gasperini is not an important case, it is a good one to test yourself and see if you truly understood the Erie doctrine. To be confused by it, while normal, shows your grasp of the material is not where it should be if you desire an A in your class.

Finally, I am still expecting that apology from you. I most likely won't be getting it, but it says more about you as a person than it does about me.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:53 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:Generally speaking it's wrong to pick at the details of a case or go into a lower court's reasoning beyond what you need to understand the main opinion. The exceptions are in Con Law and when a particular case is extremely important. These issues will be clearly flagged by your professor.

In Erie Analysis Gasperini is not an important case. Your professor might have a particular fetish for it, but that's completely unusual.

Also, get over yourself.


Again, you seemed to have glossed over the fact that I specifically said our civ pro prof expected us to perform the kind of analysis for our final exams. I sure as hell am not doing this for my contract or torts class. Maybe your civ pro prof teaches the material in a more conventional way, but I'm not taking his final exam.

While I will agree Gasperini is not an important case, it is a good one to test yourself and see if you truly understood the Erie doctrine. To be confused by it, while normal, shows your grasp of the material is not where it should be if you desire an A in your class.

Finally, I am still expecting that apology from you. I most likely won't be getting it, but it says more about you as a person than it does about me.


I glossed over that fact because it's irrelevant. How does what your civ pro professor tells you, which you acknowledge is a minority opinion, bear on OP's question?

He asked how Gasperini fit into the Erie Analysis. The answer is not: "well you have to look at the lower court opinion, etc". The answer is: "it's a one-off hack of a case so just know the holding and spend your time focusing on how to apply Hanna/Byrd."

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby keg411 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:33 pm

You guys didn't read Shady Grove? Shady grove is 10x worse than Gasperini. Gasperini just is a good clarification of how federal rules can be read narrowly as to allow state rules. Shady Grove is a mess because it's a 4-1-4 where there's no overlap with the 1 between the two sides.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:40 pm

Haha, I actually think Shady Grove is very clear, although very long as well. I enjoyed reading Shady Grove and arguing it out with my study group actually, hated Gasperini though.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby OperaSoprano » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:48 pm

rayiner wrote:
Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:Generally speaking it's wrong to pick at the details of a case or go into a lower court's reasoning beyond what you need to understand the main opinion. The exceptions are in Con Law and when a particular case is extremely important. These issues will be clearly flagged by your professor.

In Erie Analysis Gasperini is not an important case. Your professor might have a particular fetish for it, but that's completely unusual.

Also, get over yourself.


Again, you seemed to have glossed over the fact that I specifically said our civ pro prof expected us to perform the kind of analysis for our final exams. I sure as hell am not doing this for my contract or torts class. Maybe your civ pro prof teaches the material in a more conventional way, but I'm not taking his final exam.

While I will agree Gasperini is not an important case, it is a good one to test yourself and see if you truly understood the Erie doctrine. To be confused by it, while normal, shows your grasp of the material is not where it should be if you desire an A in your class.

Finally, I am still expecting that apology from you. I most likely won't be getting it, but it says more about you as a person than it does about me.


I glossed over that fact because it's irrelevant. How does what your civ pro professor tells you, which you acknowledge is a minority opinion, bear on OP's question?

He asked how Gasperini fit into the Erie Analysis. The answer is not: "well you have to look at the lower court opinion, etc". The answer is: "it's a one-off hack of a case so just know the holding and spend your time focusing on how to apply Hanna/Byrd."


Ray, I am taking Civ Pro right now. (I took electives over the summer, so the piper must be paid.) My final is in one week and I am still having issues with the Erie/Byrd/Hanna/Gasperini section. Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that? I usually don't have issues with applying facts to rules, but I am worried about issue spotting in this context. I have never had trouble simply understanding substantive material in another class.

I think my outline still needs work. :?

<3 for helping!

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby keg411 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:52 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Haha, I actually think Shady Grove is very clear, although very long as well. I enjoyed reading Shady Grove and arguing it out with my study group actually, hated Gasperini though.


Really? Our prof told us straight up that Shady Grove is mucky and extremely difficult. I wish it all ended with Gasperini :(.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby GATORTIM » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:58 pm

If somebody would have told me a few years ago that I would be reading a heated discussion on the which cases should or should not be incorporated into an Erie doctrine analysis on an anonymous forum...I would have puked in my mouth and told them to get the fuk out

User avatar
SeymourShowz
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby SeymourShowz » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:01 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that?


If the state law or state procedure is not in direct collision with a federal rule or statute, then you fall back to the "twin aims" of Erie.

If not applying the state law or procedure would (1) encourage forum shopping or (2) lead to the inequitable administration of justice, then the court should apply the state rule.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby OperaSoprano » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:13 pm

SeymourShowz wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that?


If the state law or state procedure is not in direct collision with a federal rule or statute, then you fall back to the "twin aims" of Erie.

If not applying the state law or procedure would (1) encourage forum shopping or (2) lead to the inequitable administration of justice, then the court should apply the state rule.


I think it's the direct collision issue. My professor wants us to decide, since the practice exams ask us to write an opinion, and she has said she doesn't want to see hedging. Do you think it's safer, even so, to go into the twin aims analysis if it sounds like it might be a direct collision, but could be argued either way. It's a new exam format for me as well, since hedging usually worked well in the past. Have you had to make unequivocal rulings on an exam?

User avatar
joobacca
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:49 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby joobacca » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:23 pm

my understand of gasperini was that the erie analysis fucked itself/constitution/federalism. know hanna. it has everything.

User avatar
let/them/eat/cake
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby let/them/eat/cake » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:27 pm

keg411 wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:Haha, I actually think Shady Grove is very clear, although very long as well. I enjoyed reading Shady Grove and arguing it out with my study group actually, hated Gasperini though.


Really? Our prof told us straight up that Shady Grove is mucky and extremely difficult. I wish it all ended with Gasperini :(.


Shady Grove is understandable enough, it just highlights how completely tangled and pragmatically ineffectual a doctrine can get when you start off on the wrong foot (i.e., Sibbach and its REA analysis) and then keep on stumbling down the jurisdictional path. It is quite a train-wreck in that regard, and for proof, just checked out Scalia's concurrence in SCOTUS' order to vacate and remand Holster v. Gatco, and the 2nd circuit's subsequent decision on remand.

God i love civil procedure.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:46 pm

The other two sections ended with Hanna... *Kill self*

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:03 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:Generally speaking it's wrong to pick at the details of a case or go into a lower court's reasoning beyond what you need to understand the main opinion. The exceptions are in Con Law and when a particular case is extremely important. These issues will be clearly flagged by your professor.

In Erie Analysis Gasperini is not an important case. Your professor might have a particular fetish for it, but that's completely unusual.

Also, get over yourself.


Again, you seemed to have glossed over the fact that I specifically said our civ pro prof expected us to perform the kind of analysis for our final exams. I sure as hell am not doing this for my contract or torts class. Maybe your civ pro prof teaches the material in a more conventional way, but I'm not taking his final exam.

While I will agree Gasperini is not an important case, it is a good one to test yourself and see if you truly understood the Erie doctrine. To be confused by it, while normal, shows your grasp of the material is not where it should be if you desire an A in your class.

Finally, I am still expecting that apology from you. I most likely won't be getting it, but it says more about you as a person than it does about me.


I glossed over that fact because it's irrelevant. How does what your civ pro professor tells you, which you acknowledge is a minority opinion, bear on OP's question?

He asked how Gasperini fit into the Erie Analysis. The answer is not: "well you have to look at the lower court opinion, etc". The answer is: "it's a one-off hack of a case so just know the holding and spend your time focusing on how to apply Hanna/Byrd."


Ray, I am taking Civ Pro right now. (I took electives over the summer, so the piper must be paid.) My final is in one week and I am still having issues with the Erie/Byrd/Hanna/Gasperini section. Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that? I usually don't have issues with applying facts to rules, but I am worried about issue spotting in this context. I have never had trouble simply understanding substantive material in another class.

I think my outline still needs work. :?

<3 for helping!


The Erie stuff is a little complicated, but you can set out a skeleton for analysis.

Basically, you need to break this down by case. What federal thing is at issue?

1) Constitutional provision. No argument about whether to follow, but Gasperini leaves the door open to creative solutions to following state law to some extent without violating Constitutional provision.

2) Federal statute. If there is a federal statute that is controlling, in direct conflict with the state rule, and is Constitutional (ie: not clearly subtantive), you have to follow it. Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh.

3) Federal rule. If there is an FRCP rule that is controlling, in direct conflict, constitutional, and within the rules enabling act, then you have to follow it. Hanna v. Plumer.

4) Federal practice.
a) Is it clearly substantive? If so you have to follow the state practice. Erie.
b) Would application of the federal practice implicate the twin arms of Erie: 1) encourages forum shopping; 2) promotes inequitable administration of the law.
c1) If it doesn't implicate Erie at all, then it's okay to apply the federal practice.
c2) If it implicates either arm of Erie, then you need to weigh the state's interests versus countervailing federal interests. Byrd.

To understand how the cases fit in:
Erie: Defines the Constitutional boundary.
Hanna: Synthesis case. It separates the Constitutional boundary of Erie and policy reasoning underlying it. It basically says that even when it would be Constitutional to apply federal law, the policies underlying Erie might still warrant applying the state law.
It starts with a presumption: all else being equal, the federal rule should apply (federal system is independent, its more convenient, etc).
Then it identifies conflicts: does applying the federal practice implicate the policies explicated in Erie?
Then it resolves the conflict using Byrd to balance the state and federal interests involved.

The key to Erie Analysis on an exam is to use the right language. Go through the cases to see what language to use when talking about whether a federal rule is controlling (Armco Steel), whether a practice is clearly procedural or arguably procedural or substantive or clearly substantive (Sibbach), describing the state interests and countervailing federal interests (Byrd).

Issue spotting isn't really important with Erie. Just identify the proper case (statute, rule, etc) and grind through the analysis. Make conclusions if your professor wants, but argue both sides along the way. Your professor is unlikely to give you a federal practice that is clearly substantive, for example, since that way you'd never get to Byrd, etc, so keep that in mind.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:08 pm

SeymourShowz wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that?


If the state law or state procedure is not in direct collision with a federal rule or statute, then you fall back to the "twin aims" of Erie.

If not applying the state law or procedure would (1) encourage forum shopping or (2) lead to the inequitable administration of justice, then the court should apply the state rule.


Not quite. If the practice is not clearly substantive (ie: it would be Constitutionally-valid under Erie to apply the federal law) then you need to apply the twin arms of Erie (in the prudential, rather than Constitutional sense). If either arm is implicated by application of the federal rule, you need to balance in the interests per Byrd to decide.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:43 pm

rayiner wrote:I glossed over that fact because it's irrelevant. How does what your civ pro professor tells you, which you acknowledge is a minority opinion, bear on OP's question?

He asked how Gasperini fit into the Erie Analysis. The answer is not: "well you have to look at the lower court opinion, etc". The answer is: "it's a one-off hack of a case so just know the holding and spend your time focusing on how to apply Hanna/Byrd."


That is a pretty terrible answer.

The fact that his prof bothered to assign the case means he/she expects his/her students to be able to apply the rules of the Erie doctrine into analyzing the case. Otherwise most profs would have said "Fuck it, this case makes no sense" and wouldn't even bother with it to begin with. I don't see how it was unreasonable for me to provide him with a concrete way of attacking the case rather than to dismiss it completely and risk having it come up on his final.

I was trying to be helpful on a forum that should be fostering a feeling of camaraderie. You, on the other hand, was flat out unnecessarily rude. You could have convey the same point with more tact. Thus I am asking you to apologize. The fact that you're holding out to an apology is quite sad really.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby rayiner » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:30 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:I glossed over that fact because it's irrelevant. How does what your civ pro professor tells you, which you acknowledge is a minority opinion, bear on OP's question?

He asked how Gasperini fit into the Erie Analysis. The answer is not: "well you have to look at the lower court opinion, etc". The answer is: "it's a one-off hack of a case so just know the holding and spend your time focusing on how to apply Hanna/Byrd."


That is a pretty terrible answer.

The fact that his prof bothered to assign the case means he/she expects his/her students to be able to apply the rules of the Erie doctrine into analyzing the case. Otherwise most profs would have said "Fuck it, this case makes no sense" and wouldn't even bother with it to begin with. I don't see how it was unreasonable for me to provide him with a concrete way of attacking the case rather than to dismiss it completely and risk having it come up on his final.

I was trying to be helpful on a forum that should be fostering a feeling of camaraderie. You, on the other hand, was flat out unnecessarily rude. You could have convey the same point with more tact. Thus I am asking you to apologize. The fact that you're holding out to an apology is quite sad really.


"OMG people are being mean to me on the internet!"

Seriously get over yourself.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:33 pm

rayiner wrote:"OMG people are being mean to me on the internet!"

Seriously get over yourself.


I assure you I have been on internet forums far longer than you have.

I do like how you have essentially given up trying to convince me why I was being irrelevant and instead resort to ad hominem attacks.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Thought I knew Erie well, then Gasperini came along...

Postby OperaSoprano » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:22 pm

rayiner wrote:
SeymourShowz wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:Could you speak to analysis as to whether a Federal rule is on point? I understand that if one of the FRCP directly addresses the issue, it needs to be applied, but I feel like our prof is likely to ask something that is close, but not directly on point. Did you run into anything like that?


If the state law or state procedure is not in direct collision with a federal rule or statute, then you fall back to the "twin aims" of Erie.

If not applying the state law or procedure would (1) encourage forum shopping or (2) lead to the inequitable administration of justice, then the court should apply the state rule.


Not quite. If the practice is not clearly substantive (ie: it would be Constitutionally-valid under Erie to apply the federal law) then you need to apply the twin arms of Erie (in the prudential, rather than Constitutional sense). If either arm is implicated by application of the federal rule, you need to balance in the interests per Byrd to decide.


Thank you for the helpful answers! For the life of myself I cannot believe you remember this stuff in such detail. I will revise my outline to better reflect this step by step process, the nuances of which are messing with my head just now. Our curve is less generous than yours, so I'm pretty much praying to the litigation gods that I be spared their wrath. Why does Con Law seem like a picnic in Central Park compared to this?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: axel.foley, deadthrone7, juzam_djinn and 6 guests