Top Law Schools

Civ pro final tomorrow and nobody is awake to answer my question so here it goes..
ERIE
When you have a federal rule that is valid and constitutional and does not conflict with state law

... Do you apply federal law? Or do you have to go through the twin aims of erie analysis?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you TLS.

Villanova?

pookie wrote:Civ pro final tomorrow and nobody is awake to answer my question so here it goes..
ERIE
When you have a federal rule that is valid and constitutional and does not conflict with state law

... Do you apply federal law? Or do you have to go through the twin aims of erie analysis?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you TLS.

Are you talking about having a state law and a federal law that both would apply and both be valid?

haha okay, when you put it like that... that's just not possible right

but yes that is what i was referring to

Well, there are a whole mess of issues, Well Pleaded Complaint Rule, Creation test (is the law being invoked a state claim or a federal claim). If it is a state claim, use the grable test to figure if federal court is needed to judge this, is it central to deciding the case, would it throw off the balance of state/federal powers. Does the federal law have a preemption clause?

pookie wrote:but yes that is what i was referring to

Goal of Erie is to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Also, the Erie doctrine wants the federal court to reach the same outcome as the state courts in that state would.

So, if you had Federal Law and State law, both on the same point, you'd have to use the federal law, that's how it would work in every state, it's just a Federalism thing.

The conflicts often come up with the FRCP, which are authorized by a federal law, the Rules Enabling Act, but they nominally manage procedure, so most FRCP are considered procedural and will end up being used, you just have to do the analysis first. That's the Hanna test, Byrd test, etc.

This flowchart assumes you have a state law/FRCP conflict:

--ImageRemoved--

that chart is awesome - thanks so much for the help

Wish I had that chart when I took civpro. Woulda saved a ton of time.

prezidentv8 wrote:Wish I had that chart when I took civpro. Woulda saved a ton of time.

Just wanted to chime in and say it's not mine, I just found it online. Glad it is/will be/would have been helpful.

pookie wrote:Civ pro final tomorrow and nobody is awake to answer my question so here it goes..
ERIE
When you have a federal rule that is valid and constitutional and does not conflict with state law

... Do you apply federal law? Or do you have to go through the twin aims of erie analysis?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you TLS.

If there is no conflict then technically you don't have to go through an Erie analysis since Erie only applies when there is a conflict.

However, I doubt you're going to get a problem where the answer as simple as "there is no conflict, thus no Erie." More likely what a situation like this will actually be asking you to do is whether you can read the federal rule broadly so that you can create a conflict with the state law and thus force an Erie analysis. Usually the point of this is to invalidate a state law that seems to not conflict at all (like what Scalia did in Shady Grove).