Choice of Law Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
frank galvin
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 pm

Choice of Law Question

Postby frank galvin » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:27 pm

Suppose in diversity a state rule and a Federal rule are in conflict, but the conflict is related to judge-made doctrine associated with the rule. (Similar to Iqbal standard v. state standard notice pleading). Does this invite a discussion of two analyses, one under Erie and the RDA, and another under Hanna and the REA?

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Choice of Law Question

Postby Geist13 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:57 pm

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be that there's really no such thing of a rule distinct from its interpretation/application. Every FRCP is subject to the court's interpretation of the text. So there's no Rules Enabling Act analysis that does not implicitly include how the rule is traditionally interpreted in federal practice. Another way to think about it is that the rule is the interpretation of the rule. Thus, I would think you only need to do a Rules Enabling Act analysis. Otherwise, there would never be an instance where you wouldn't have to do both.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: Choice of Law Question

Postby blsingindisguise » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:16 pm

Geist13 wrote:I don't know the answer, but my guess would be that there's really no such thing of a rule distinct from its interpretation/application. Every FRCP is subject to the court's interpretation of the text.


Sounds right to me. Very good question, but I don't think there's any added layer due to the fact that you have a judge-made rule vs. a statutory one.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deadthrone7, gwcolonial24, lizaregina, pandapops, shineoncrazydiamond and 11 guests