feralinfant wrote: emarxnj wrote: feralinfant wrote:
You guys didn't cover shady grove or gasperini but the one thing i'll throw out there is that its sometimes not clear if a rule covers something or not. In other words it might not be clear whether you're dealing with a judicial procedural practice, or a procedure set out by the FRCP. In this sense you might have a rule come up (I did on my final).
It might depend on how broadly narrowly you read the rule. The take away from shady grove for example which it doesn't sound like you read, was whether Rule 23 covered class actions in their entirety, or whether they're just how you form a class when a suit is eligible for a class action. The majority though the rule covered it all and it won the day. The dissent thought it didn't conflict with the state law. (the state law in issue barred class actions for a type of claim).
here's what i had for my flowchart (not actually a flow chart but hope it helps). http://imgur.com/jhnY9uk
That's the kind of thing I'm making for my exam "cheat sheet", so that's very helpful, thanks.
I'm getting a little tripped up on "avoidance of inequitable administration of law" aim of Erie, can some just clarify what that actually amounts to?
it's just the whole outcome determinative/forum shopping bit. it's inequitable if you you're getting different outcomes in different courts and thats affecting peoples decision making.
Okay that's what I thought, I was trying to define the two separately, but they speak to the same overall idea. People are going to go to one court system over another to get result they want.
So, here's my understanding so far, I pulled some of this from an older post on the subject, let me know how it's looking. Assuming we have diversity of course...
1. Is there FRCP on point?
-If YES go to #2
-If NO go to #3
2. Is there a conflict between the state law and FRCP?
-If NO, apply both (one could accommodate the other)
-If YES, continue
2a. Is it Constitutional/within the REA (it almost always is)?
-If YES, use FRCP
-If NO, use the state rule (this isn't going to happen though)
3. Is there a conflict between federal common law practice and state law?
-If NO, apply both
-If YES, continue
3a. Does it go against the twin aims of "Erie" and Harlan's concurrence? (my professor wants this as well)
-If YES, use state law
-If NO, use federal law
When we say "state law" in step 3, that means ANY state law right? Statutory or common law?
Anything big I'm missing here? Is there stuff I'm not really fleshing out? Should the RDA be coming into consideration at some step or at least be mentioned? Is this a major oversimplification? Sorry I know this is a ton of shit on Erie, I appreciate any answers.