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
Grad_Student
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:20 am

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

Postby Grad_Student » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:34 pm

Gamecubesupreme has GOT to be an elaborate troll lol.

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 7:58 pm

Grad_Student wrote:Gamecubesupreme has GOT to be an elaborate troll lol.


Thanks, I thought I was getting rusty with my trolling skills.

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 7:59 pm

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


Quoted for the LULZ.

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 8:22 pm

rayiner wrote:
Gamecubesupreme wrote:I assure you I have been on internet forums far longer than you have.


Quoted for the LULZ.


It's kind of sad how seriously you take yourself on the internet. Otherwise that should have tipped you off.

Instead, you remain pathetic to 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 8:33 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Gamecubesupreme wrote:I assure you I have been on internet forums far longer than you have.


Quoted for the LULZ.


It's kind of sad how seriously you take yourself on the internet. Otherwise that should have tipped you off.

Instead, you remain pathetic to me.


I take myself seriously? You're the one who got butt-hurt and demanded an apology.

A0566
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:52 am

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

Postby A0566 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:02 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."


To be fair, the other poster wasn't saying you should look at the lower court opinion to understand Gasperini. He was only pointing out how federal trial courts should now apply the "materially deviates" standard the in light of Gasperini, and how that standard was a change from the "shocks the conscience" standard federal trial courts used to apply.

And my Civ Pro class also applied Gasperini.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:04 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.


How could Shady Grove be clear? it is a 4-1-4 decision.

Which opinion controls? Stevens' opinion, although the narrowest, may possibly not be used at all because neither Ginsburg or I forget the other side ever mention his discussion of defining the Rules Enabling Act.

Shady Grove turns Erie into a pile of shit.

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 10:11 pm

Scalia wrote the majority in Shady Grove. BarbellDreams, any way you can crystallize Shady Grove for me since you get it? It's making my head spin. I wish we stopped at Gasperini :(.

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 10:32 pm

keg411 wrote:Scalia wrote the majority in Shady Grove. BarbellDreams, any way you can crystallize Shady Grove for me since you get it? It's making my head spin. I wish we stopped at Gasperini :(.


Shady Grove is incredibly simple.

Scalia = Is federal rule arguably procedural. If yes, fuck state rule, federal rule applies, period.

Ginsburg = There is no conflict between Rule 23 and NY law. So no need to worry about the whole issue that Scalia talked about. Also, she believes the state law was substantive because it limits what the P can recover, sort of like a cap. This makes sense once you understand how class action works, as plaintiffs are less likely to ALL sue the defendant if they have to do it separately, which means the D pays less.

Stevens = Agrees with Scalia that there is a conflict, but disagree with his stance that federal rule should apply all the time even though it is arguably procedural. Stevens argue there are substantive state laws that could apply even if the federal law is arguably procedural. Also, he believes the state law was procedural because it is more efficient for the court to handle the P's separately rather than altogether in a class action suit. Yes, this might sound counter-intuitive, but this is what Stevens thinks.

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 10:57 pm

I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.

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

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

Postby keg411 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:27 am

keg411 wrote:I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.


After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.

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 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:02 pm

keg: Basically what the Gamecube typed out is what we learned and played around with some hypos. Our prof said there really is no rule, but he wants us to be able to argue out each of the three justices views on the exam if an Erie issue came up. Its kind of like if Asahi comes up he wants us to argue each of the three opinions.

This is the second time ever I agree with Scalia. Never thought it would happen again after Asahi, but here it is.

This is what the Erie test should be in my opinion: Is there a federal rule thats arguably procedural? Does Congress have power to make that rule? Is the issue being discussed within the scope of that rule? If yes to all three, apply federal. Scalia would likely agree with my test, too bad my professor wouldn't.

Omerta
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:47 pm

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

Postby Omerta » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:54 pm

keg411 wrote:
keg411 wrote:I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.


After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.


This is the correct response. Erie is one of the things that I think asking about on TLS is probably not worth doing; instead talk to other people in your class or took your professor. There's some stuff in here that my professor ignored and other stuff that he really emphasized. Erie is one of those things that every CivPro prof is going to take a different view on. Mine says:

Fed statute conflicts with state statute? Apply fed statute, Supremacy Clause.

FRCP? Made w/ constitutional authority and arguably procedural? Is it on point?
Broad v. narrow interpretation. Compare and contrast

So no FRCP on point, move to the RDA. Is the rule substantive or procedural? Apply York, Byrd, and Hanna tests.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:35 pm

keg411 wrote:
keg411 wrote:I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.


After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.



Yes this does suck because I am in your class too lol ... I think what our prof is trying to have us realize is that because it is a 4-1-4 split there is no majority decision and thus no real created law. The rule is that when there is a 4-1-4 split, the narrowest rule applies. Here, the ambiguity arises because the 1 (Stevens) only overlaps one and not both, and so it is not the narrowest opinion in the strictest interpretation of the 4-1-4 split rule because (unless I am wrong) one of the opinions doesn't address Stevens' Rules Enabling Act issue.

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 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:53 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
keg411 wrote:
keg411 wrote:I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.


After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.



Yes this does suck because I am in your class too lol ... I think what our prof is trying to have us realize is that because it is a 4-1-4 split there is no majority decision and thus no real created law. The rule is that when there is a 4-1-4 split, the narrowest rule applies. Here, the ambiguity arises because the 1 (Stevens) only overlaps one and not both, and so it is not the narrowest opinion in the strictest interpretation of the 4-1-4 split rule because (unless I am wrong) one of the opinions doesn't address Stevens' Rules Enabling Act issue.


i'm pretty sure it's the narrowest grounds on which the case was decided. so it is between scalia's plurality opinion and stevens' concurrence, out of which stevens' concurrence is the more narrow.

Also
This is the second time ever I agree with Scalia. Never thought it would happen again after Asahi, but here it is.

This is what the Erie test should be in my opinion: Is there a federal rule thats arguably procedural? Does Congress have power to make that rule? Is the issue being discussed within the scope of that rule? If yes to all three, apply federal. Scalia would likely agree with my test, too bad my professor wouldn't.


You can agree with Scalia if you'd like, it doesn't make his interpretation/approach any less wooden, formalist, or unresponsive to the original text and motivation of the REA.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:07 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:
GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
keg411 wrote:
keg411 wrote:I understand the party's viewpoints and what happened in the case, but what's really the rule going forward? Maybe the way our prof is trying to explain it is more confusing than it needs to be, but unfortunately, I'm taking his class and not one that's "simple" :(.


After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.



Yes this does suck because I am in your class too lol ... I think what our prof is trying to have us realize is that because it is a 4-1-4 split there is no majority decision and thus no real created law. The rule is that when there is a 4-1-4 split, the narrowest rule applies. Here, the ambiguity arises because the 1 (Stevens) only overlaps one and not both, and so it is not the narrowest opinion in the strictest interpretation of the 4-1-4 split rule because (unless I am wrong) one of the opinions doesn't address Stevens' Rules Enabling Act issue.


i'm pretty sure it's the narrowest grounds on which the case was decided. so it is between scalia's plurality opinion and stevens' concurrence, out of which stevens' concurrence is the more narrow.

Also
This is the second time ever I agree with Scalia. Never thought it would happen again after Asahi, but here it is.

This is what the Erie test should be in my opinion: Is there a federal rule thats arguably procedural? Does Congress have power to make that rule? Is the issue being discussed within the scope of that rule? If yes to all three, apply federal. Scalia would likely agree with my test, too bad my professor wouldn't.


You can agree with Scalia if you'd like, it doesn't make his interpretation/approach any less wooden, formalist, or unresponsive to the original text and motivation of the REA.



Well unless my professor was wrong, then you are right. I vividly remember him drawing a diagram of a 4-1-4 opinion (one big box on the left with a 4, a big box on the right adjacent to it with a 4, and then a little box in the middle that overlaps the two boxes. however, since Scalia only addressed Stevens and not Ginsburg, the narrow opinion box was only shaded by the Scalia opinion, and thus was not the narrowest opinion because no opinion was given by Ginsburg on the Stevens' issue).

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 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:08 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
let/them/eat/cake wrote:
GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
keg411 wrote:
After looking at a bunch of outside material, I've decided that yes, our professor is making Erie more complicated than it should be :lol:. Unfortunately, we have to follow his way :(.



Yes this does suck because I am in your class too lol ... I think what our prof is trying to have us realize is that because it is a 4-1-4 split there is no majority decision and thus no real created law. The rule is that when there is a 4-1-4 split, the narrowest rule applies. Here, the ambiguity arises because the 1 (Stevens) only overlaps one and not both, and so it is not the narrowest opinion in the strictest interpretation of the 4-1-4 split rule because (unless I am wrong) one of the opinions doesn't address Stevens' Rules Enabling Act issue.


i'm pretty sure it's the narrowest grounds on which the case was decided. so it is between scalia's plurality opinion and stevens' concurrence, out of which stevens' concurrence is the more narrow.



Well unless my professor was wrong, then you are right. I vividly remember him drawing a diagram of a 4-1-4 opinion (one big box on the left with a 4, a big box on the right adjacent to it with a 4, and then a little box in the middle that overlaps the two boxes. however, since Scalia only addressed Stevens and not Ginsburg, the narrow opinion box was only shaded by the Scalia opinion, and thus was not the narrowest opinion because no opinion was given by Ginsburg on the Stevens' issue).


he overlapped the two big boxes with Stevens' box (hehe) because Stevens' opinion has something in common with both the Scalia's plurality and Ginsburg's dissent. while it super difficult to try to follow what you are saying (no animus intended, you, like me, are prob superbusy right now), the "narrow opinion" box--which i'm pretty sure is meant to represent Stevens' concurrence--was only shaded in where it overlapped with Scalia's opinion, precisely because of what I said before--the case was decided based on 5 votes. 4 of which came from Scalia's box and one of which came from that little box (which is Stevens' concurrence). That shaded part represents the 5 votes upon which the case was decided. Out of those 5 votes the narrowest grounds are found in Stevens' concurrence, because he strays the least from established precedent.

Also, it sounds like your professor is mucking this up--prob not intentionally, but he should just spell this out in clear english to you instead of drawing shit on the board.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:25 pm

I am just going to agree because I can't even muster up an argument because I am so brain dead right now blah (I wonder if the judge or my client would be happy with that kind of rebuttal)

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 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:43 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:I am just going to agree because I can't even muster up an argument because I am so brain dead right now blah (I wonder if the judge or my client would be happy with that kind of rebuttal)


This should help:

McKinney v. Bayer Corp.
2010 WL 3834327

"As was the case in Whirlpool and Bearden, the Court finds that Justice Stevens' concurrence in Shady Grove is the controlling opinion by which it is bound. See Whirlpool, 2010 U .S. Dist. LEXIS 69254, at *6-8 (stating that Justice Stevens was “the crucial fifth vote in Shady Grove” and applying his approach); see Bearden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83996, at *29 (“Justice Stevens's concurrence is the controlling opinion”). The Court agrees that this approach is the most consistent with the Supreme Court's “narrowest grounds” rule, which instructs that: “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); United States v. Cundiff, 555 F.3d 200, 208 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Marks ).
*11 In Cundiff, the Sixth Circuit stated that the “narrowest opinion refers to the one which relies on the least doctrinally far-reaching-common ground among the Justices in the majority: it is the concurring opinion that offers the least change to the law.” Cundiff, 555 F.3d at 209 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Because Justice Stevens' concurring opinion would permit some state law provisions addressing class actions-whereas Justice Scalia's opinion in Part II-B (which only had the support of four Justices) would broadly prohibit any state law that conflicted with Rule 23-Justice Stevens' opinion is the narrowest and, thus, controlling opinion."

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

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

Postby keg411 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:11 pm

^^

Based on this, our CivPro prof is just complicating Shady Grove on his own accord. Bleh. And it's not like he even was "hiding the ball" -- he was giving us his opinions on the case!

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 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:29 pm

keg411 wrote:^^

Based on this, our CivPro prof is just complicating Shady Grove on his own accord. Bleh. And it's not like he even was "hiding the ball" -- he was giving us his opinions on the case!


he's prob being a jag because, well, he's a law professor. but honestly, Stevens' concurrence doesn't really give much guidance or criteria, so it's pretty unclear how the lower courts are going to move forward. Most likely, where lowers courts would formerly attempt to avoid a collision and interpret statutory language with a sensitivity to the respective state and federal interests, now they will say that a given provision under review is "so intertwined with that statute's rights and remedies that it functions to define the scope of the substantive rights" (Beardon v. Honeywell), or stuff along those lines. It's really six of one, half a dozen of the other, from what I can tell thus far.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:28 pm

But, isn't this opinion 2010 WL 3834327 not law at all because it is from a lower district court? I will read this opinion and bring it to my prof to see what he says.

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 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:53 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:But, isn't this opinion 2010 WL 3834327 not law at all because it is from a lower district court? I will read this opinion and bring it to my prof to see what he says.


am I being trolled?

either way, i'm happy this prof is going to have to deal with some kid bringing him opinions from two months ago and saying "'well splain this then." lol a job well done.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

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

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:33 pm

let/them/eat/cake wrote:
GoodToBeTheKing wrote:But, isn't this opinion 2010 WL 3834327 not law at all because it is from a lower district court? I will read this opinion and bring it to my prof to see what he says.


am I being trolled?

either way, i'm happy this prof is going to have to deal with some kid bringing him opinions from two months ago and saying "'well splain this then." lol a job well done.


haha knowing him he will probably give me some backhand answer




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavalier1138, Google [Bot], rockosmodernlife and 9 guests