Você está na página 1de 2

Evolution of the Erie Doctrine Case Swift v.

Tyson Holding Concern: a bill of exchange SC interpreted the laws of the states of R&D to mean that general federal law was to be applied by federal courts whenever there was no state constitutional or statutory law. Concern: tort principles R&D required the fed ct in diversity cases to: apply the states written and un-written substantive law apply federal procedural law Some follow-on rules: If there are no state decisions or laws on point, federal courts must guess what state courts what do Federal court decisions in diversity actions are not binding precedent in state courts If state courts disapprove of federal decisions, the federal courts must follow the new state decision Concern: SOL a housekeeping rule The Outcome Determinative Test: If it significantly affects the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a state law that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in state court, the federal court should apply the state law. Concern: jury trial laws Issue: Whether a judge (the state rule) or a jury (the federal rule) should decide whether P was an empee or IC There was no evidence that the state practice of judicial decision-making was central to the states worker compensation regime, Support for federal wayconstitution Support for state waystate common law Hanna v. Plumer Concern: service Notes Effect: Federal courts must apply state constitutional and statutory law, but they need not apply state common law (local law) Resulted in forum shopping Resulted in disparate bodies of law btwn fed cts & state cts Rationale (1) Statutory interpretation (R&D was interpreted incorrectly) (2) Practical concerns (forum shopping, uniformity of law) (3) Constitutional interpretation Swift gave fed judges power to create law which wasnt given to them in the const it was given to the states; Equal protection issues b/c in-state & out-of-state litigants were treated differently Federalism Concern: Fed cts use of fed common law encroached on states power, which is something that cong cant do either (where SOP comes in) Effect: Shifted the allocation on power from the federal government to the states by obligating fed cts to enforce state laws in federal courts Why make an outcome-determinative distinction? Goes back to need to deter forum shopping How does this tip the state-federalism balance? Towards the states Kind of nullifies fed power

Erie RR v. Tompkins

Guaranty Trust v. York

Effect: Under this approach, procedural rules can be deemed substantive b/c almost every procedural rule can have some outcome-determinative consequences (problem b/c no line btwn the 2) Policy: 7th amendment assigns disputed issues of fact to juries Implication to overall analysis: even if a rule might be outcome determinative, if the federal rule is strong enough you might have to do this balancing test Byrd Important Federal Interest Test Federal cts must balance the federal interest of applying its rule against the states interest in applying its rule when the rule in question is not bound up with the rights & obligations of the parties, and instead merely deals with the form & mode of enforcing a right- EVEN if the rule in question might be outcome determinative

Byrd v. Blue Ridge

The Important Federal Interest Test Outcome determinativeness must be evaluated with reference to the importance of the state rule to state substantive policies and the countervailing federal interests embodied in the federal practice Balancing approach of the strengths of the interests (fed v. state) The ultimate mushy-balance test form & mode = a procedural rule state rules should usually be applied if they might prove outcome determinative If FRCP, ct must apply it if: 1. It is applicable to the issue at hand 2. It conflicts with state law 3. Its valid under the R&E

Validity of the service in question turned

on whether the federal ct was required to apply the state service rule instead of 4(d)(1) Erie Analysis not applicable to the situation where there is a valid and applicable FCRP if the FRCP is valid under the R&E and the const, and the rule is directly applicable to the issue at hand, then the fed ct is bound to apply it Gasp

4.

Its valid under the const

Effect: incentivizes fed judges to find a federal rule that conflicts b/c that ends the erie analysis