Question: I've got notes on Hanna v. Pulmer and how to apply it in choice of law cases (federal court under Erie). There are two parts to Hanna (I and II). I deals with the two aims of Erie (forum shopping and preventing inequitable administration of the laws). II deals with issues where there is a conflict between a FRCP or a Federal statute and state practice, or statute, or even constitution.
Anyway, here's the question. When a case requires Hanna II analysis, do you also consider the Hanna I issues (Erie aims). The reason that I ask is that I just finished Shady Grove (Scalia opinion) where he uses Hanna I and II, and it occurred to me that on the exam this might be a good way to cover bases (I and II) given that there are some instances where it is not entirely clear if there is a conflict that invokes Hanna II, and the entire interpretative issue is focused through the lens of the Erie decision. Any advice on this?
A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
1 post • Page 1 of 1