Top Law Schools

asdfasdfasd

#3 is D. A federal court sitting in diversity uses the choice of law principles that a state court in that state (where the federal court sits) would use.

Klaxon, 313 U.S. 487 (1941), http://supreme.justia.com/us/313/487/

#2 my gut says "no" to using state law for juries because federal law does not encourage forum shopping in federal court. But I don't remember the distinctions between those cases.

Pretty sure #1 is C. I've actually been studying Erie for the last couple hours so hopefully I've got this right.

You've got a conflict between a federal practice (not a rule from the FRCP) and a state rule, so Hanna Part I applies. Applying the federal practice in this case would frustrate the twin aims of Erie because it would encourage forum shopping and lead to the inequitable administration of justice. Therefore, the state rule prevails.

Someone want to back me up?

SeymourShowz wrote:Pretty sure #1 is C. I've actually been studying Erie for the last couple hours so hopefully I've got this right.

You've got a conflict between a federal practice (not a rule from the FRCP) and a state rule, so Hanna Part I applies. Applying the federal practice in this case would frustrate the twin aims of Erie because it would encourage forum shopping and lead in the inequitable administration of justice. Therefor, the state rule prevails.

Someone want to back me up?

I think you're right.

SeymourShowz wrote:Pretty sure #1 is C. I've actually been studying Erie for the last couple hours so hopefully I've got this right.

You've got a conflict between a federal practice (not a rule from the FRCP) and a state rule, so Hanna Part I applies. Applying the federal practice in this case would frustrate the twin aims of Erie because it would encourage forum shopping and lead to the inequitable administration of justice. Therefore, the state rule prevails.

Someone want to back me up?

It's not entirely clear because the question stem doesn't really say for sure whether there is a valid and applicable Federal Rule on the matter, but based upon the choices this does seem like the best answer.

I actually have a follow up question... My prof doesn't require or even care if we cite cases. Is there any reason to go back and try to understand and remember any of the cases other than Erie and Hanna? It seems like with an understanding of the "twin aims" of Erie, and the holding in Hanna I and II you can analyze any Erie doctrine hypo... Am I missing something?