Top Law Schools

Want to make sure I have this down right.

Erie analysis steps:

0) Federal vs. state law clash.

1) Substantive or procedural? if substantive, state law wins.

2) If procedural, federal law generally wins but big exceptions:
a) FRCP or federal legislation? see if constitutional (doesn't abridge, modify, alter substantive rights given by state law)
i) If so, apply outcome-determinative test.
x) different outcome? use state law
y) hold up. not necessarily. think about twin aims. think about hanna reasoning. would it have forced plaintiff to file in federal court?

3) Byrd test - if not FRCP or federal legislation, but maybe federal common practice, balance interests. If it's something like 7th Amendment, law of Constitution, it's going to win vs. state.

Is this right? this is confusing

I would be careful about taking advice about Erie. Some profs teach it pretty differently. For instance, I think my prof taught that Byrd should be analyzed as part of Hanna (or something, I don't really remember).

dabigchina wrote:I would be careful about taking advice about Erie.

Yeah, Erie is not cut-and-dry doctrine, so I'd be extremely wary of any advice from someone who has not had your exact same professor and is comfortable with the topic. That entire line of cases is ridiculous.

My prof taught it the same way Freer did, so using his flow chart worked well, but yes professors teach it differently, and you should analyze an Erie issue the way your professor taught you to.

Erie is not cut-and-dry, but the arguments are concrete, and on an exam you just have to go through the analysis and analyze each issue. Go to your professor's office hours try to figure out what analytical framework he/she wants you to use. If he or she is hiding the ball and doesn't want to tell you, then Freer is a good starting point, but you will live and die by your class notes.

I can tell you your "2-a-i-x-y" analytical framework is off though. It's not "if procedural, federal law generally wins," it's "if procedural, move onto next step of the analysis." Your analysis is also missing the Rules Enabling Act in Hanna, which is pretty important.

Thanks!

1) (Hanna Holding) if there is a valid and pertinent federal statute (or rule pursuant to statute), it applies
--Valid = it complies with the Rules Enabling Act (not abridge, modify, enlarge any substantive right)
--Pertinent = it covers the issue

2) (Hanna Dictum) if not, and it's state law vs. federal common law, you do the outcome-determinative test,

UNLESS there are affirmative countervailing considerations to use the federal law (Byrd)

question. is it okay to look at bar exam civ pro mcs for practice?

abridge/enlarge/modify is a separate inquiry than constitutional (respectively step 2 and 3 of the Hanna analysis). the former is §2072.

don't forget step -1: are you in a fed court sitting in diversity?

perfunctory wrote:question. is it okay to look at bar exam civ pro mcs for practice?

Is Erie even on the bar exam? I passed the bar recently and can't remember there being anything about Erie on the exam or during my prep. But I might have just removed all that garbage from my memory.