Which test to use for Erie Forum

[ftblryan]

So I have the Byrd test (fed interest) and the Hanna 1 & 2 down pretty well. In a classic erie problem FRCP vs. State procedural law where its unclear if its substantive or procedural do I apply both tests? Or should I just go to Hanna 2? I kind of want to do both but if I can get a clear answer just applying either one that will save me time or do you think that I should apply both tests no matter what?

[Gamecubesupreme]

So I have the Byrd test (fed interest) and the Hanna 1 & 2 down pretty well. In a classic erie problem FRCP vs. State procedural law where its unclear if its substantive or procedural do I apply both tests? Or should I just go to Hanna 2? I kind of want to do both but if I can get a clear answer just applying either one that will save me time or do you think that I should apply both tests no matter what?

FRCP vs. State procedural would be a Hannah Part II test with regards to whether the FRCP is a) arguably procedural and b) if the rule abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. Thanks to the Rules Enabling Act.

[Unitas]

So I have the Byrd test (fed interest) and the Hanna 1 & 2 down pretty well. In a classic erie problem FRCP vs. State procedural law where its unclear if its substantive or procedural do I apply both tests? Or should I just go to Hanna 2? I kind of want to do both but if I can get a clear answer just applying either one that will save me time or do you think that I should apply both tests no matter what?

If it is a rule in direct conflict with state law it would overrule state law with a caveat. Meaning if it was enacted under the REA and was ok with second paragraph of the REA then it would be supreme law of land and state rule didn't matter. If it wasn't ok with REA's second paragraph about enlarging, abriging, or modifing substantive rights you would go with state law and the rule should be stricken "this has never happened." What is likely to happen if a rule appears to violate second paragraph of REA is that the rule will be read very narrowly as to not conflict with state at all. Then no issue if it was ok or not, cause you'd just apply state rule. Walker v Amoco Steel I believe shows this in action.

Direct conflict between actual FRCP rule do what I just stated, but I'll state it again:
Does REA enacted rule conflict with state rule? If no, then use state rule. If yes, continue.
Is rule arguably procedural? If yes, then use rule as it is supreme law of land. If no, then it violates second act of REA and is invalid "never happens."
Can rule be read as to avoid conflict? If yes, do so and state rule applies. If not, rule is truly invalid (some professor may put this on test)

Part I of Hanna test is Federal Practice versus state law, not an actual rule. Byrd test and Hanna part I are pretty much same thing.

[ftblryan]

I should rephrase the question. Should I answer with the Byrd test (fed interest) AND Hanna II or just stick to Hanna II in the interest of time

[kswiss]

If you want to get points and there is a way to argue both, do it.

Ex. a lot of federal courts will strictly construe the FRCP so that they don't create a direct collision with state law. If they don't directly collide, then do the RDA (twin aims of erie) analysis too --> get more points.

If you hit it on an essay question, it will probably be arguable which analysis should apply since the professor is testing your analytical/argument abilities rather than strict application of rules.

[OGR3]

If you want to get points and there is a way to argue both, do it.

Points in law school exams are overrated.

[Unitas]

I should rephrase the question. Should I answer with the Byrd test (fed interest) AND Hanna II or just stick to Hanna II in the interest of time

Byrd doesn't really apply when Hanna part II applies from what I understand. Because Hanna part two is analyzing what is basically a federal statute with limits so you just analyze that statue and not federal policy. Byrd and Hanna I are basically same test.

If you want to get points and there is a way to argue both, do it.

Ex. a lot of federal courts will strictly construe the FRCP so that they don't create a direct collision with state law. If they don't directly collide, then do the RDA (twin aims of erie) analysis too --> get more points.

If you hit it on an essay question, it will probably be arguable which analysis should apply since the professor is testing your analytical/argument abilities rather than strict application of rules.

If the rule is construed as to not apply then the conflict is gone, like in walker when the rule was read narrowly it did away with conflict didn't it? Unless you could argue it is then a federal practice which I could possible agree with if the facts stated it, but never seen a case that does this and it should be evident if it did. If you did Byrd after you said the rule didn't apply like in walker, then that would be silly.

[Compaq1984]

See Gasperini... FRCP and 7th amendment read narrowly so they do not conflict with state law... Court then uses Byrd/Hanna #1 to analyze each. There is no clear path that the courts will consistently use but this is okay as it makes for an interesting analysis of Erie issues. It can even be argued that courts possibly do Byrd balancing test before deciding how they will view the federal law/rule (narrowly or broadly). Based on their view, they either head towards Hanna 1 or Hanna 2; in other words, they almost decide which law will prevail before applying the test to justify it. Not likely to see the court view federal rule broadly and then say that it fails Hanna 2.