Top Law Schools

I am trying to make sure I understand the Erie doctrine, so here is my summary. What is wrong or missing?

Under Erie, Federal courts must defer to the state law of the stat in which they are sitting when jurisdiction arises out of diversity, there would be a possible difference in outcome under state or federal law, and the difference in law is substantive, not procedural (i.e.: FedRCivP apply in all federal courts even if it would change the outcome).

...Right?

DocHawkeye wrote:I am trying to make sure I understand the Erie doctrine, so here is my summary. What is wrong or missing?

Under Erie, Federal courts must defer to the state law of the stat in which they are sitting when jurisdiction arises out of diversity, there would be a possible difference in outcome under state or federal law, and the difference in law is substantive, not procedural (i.e.: FedRCivP apply in all federal courts even if it would change the outcome).

...Right?

It's been a while since CivPro, but I think you're missing something about procedural law from Hanna. (Also, be careful with saying "under Erie," because the Erie doctrine is modified by subsequent cases.)

Void wrote:

DocHawkeye wrote:I am trying to make sure I understand the Erie doctrine, so here is my summary. What is wrong or missing?

Under Erie, Federal courts must defer to the state law of the stat in which they are sitting when jurisdiction arises out of diversity, there would be a possible difference in outcome under state or federal law, and the difference in law is substantive, not procedural (i.e.: FedRCivP apply in all federal courts even if it would change the outcome).

...Right?

It's been a while since CivPro, but I think you're missing something about procedural law from Hanna. (Also, be careful with saying "under Erie," because the Erie doctrine is modified by subsequent cases.)

Your point is well taken. I'll go back and read Hanna again.

Here you go : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9393059/erie.docx

Teoeo wrote:Here you go : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9393059/erie.docx

Holy cow that's long.

This was from my Civ Pro I attack outline and I think it would lend itself well to flowcharting. Got an A in the class, but I never followed up with the prof so I dont know how I did on the Erie problem.

btw, the credited response for all things relating to the Jurisdiction part of Civ Pro is Richard Freer's BarBri lecture.

Step One (Hanna): Is there a Federal Directive (Statute, FRCP) On Point?
•• IF YES, Federal Directive trumps state law if its valid.
•• IF NO, go to step two.

For FRCP, look at Rules Enabling Act (§2072) to determine validity
• Valid if it does not create, abridge, or modify a substantive right

Step Two (Erie): Does the Federal Judge have to apply State law?
• (Guaranty Trust) Outcome Determinative Test: Does the issue affect the outcome of the case?
•• IF YES, it's substantive and use state law.
•• IF NO, move on.

• (Byrd) Balance The Interests Test:
FIRST - Is state rule bound up with implementing state created rights and obligations? Does it regulate behavior outside of planning and executing litigation (primary behavior)?
•• IF YES, then apply state law.
•• IF NO (only a rule of form and mode), then balance Erie policy concerns vs. countervailing federal considerations.

• (Erie) Twin Aims Test: Apply the policy goals of Erie
- Ask: If the Federal Judge ignores state law on this issue, will it cause parties to flock to Federal Court?
•• IF YES, follow state law.