Burlington in an Erie Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Burlington in an Erie Q

Postby onthemoney » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:50 pm

How are people applying Burlington by a conflict b/w a FRCP and a state law. Just on whether the FRCP is discretionary? Whether it only incidentally infringes on a state right?
Last edited by onthemoney on Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Burlington in an Erie Q

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:12 pm

FRCP is arguably procedural and obviously doesn't abridge,enlarge or modify any citizen's rights so its consistent with the REA and it applies.

Not sure what you're asking other than why FRCP applies in the case.

onthemoney
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Burlington in an Erie Q

Postby onthemoney » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:15 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:FRCP is arguably procedural and obviously doesn't abridge,enlarge or modify any citizen's rights so its consistent with the REA and it applies.

Not sure what you're asking other than why FRCP applies in the case.


Firstly, your reasoning is conclusory, you have to deterimine that is procedural/arguably procedural before saying it's valid with the REA. Secondly, the question is relevant for a hypo presenting a "new" FRCP (which you then have to test).

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

Re: Burlington in an Erie Q

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:40 pm

Its not my reasoning, its the court's reasoning in the case. The court found a conflict because the state law demanded 10% while the FRCP allowed discretion so they could either award, not award, award 10%, award 7%, etc. The court found it to be arguably procedural, not abridging, modifying or enlarging citizen's substantive rights thus within the scope of the REA.

My reasoning was conclusory because the court's reasoning was conclusory. I guess I am just unsure as to what you're asking here, hence not many responses.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests