DOCSLIB.ORG

A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law UC Irvine Law Review Volume 10 Issue 4 Article 5 6-2020 A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law Allan Erbsen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Allan Erbsen, A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law, 10 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 1101 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol10/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UCI Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UC Irvine Law Review by an authorized editor of UCI Law Scholarly Commons. First to Printer_Erbsen.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/7/20 7:28 AM A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law Allan Erbsen* Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1103 I. Situating the Relative Priority of Federal and State Law in the Broader Context of Erie Jurisprudence ....................................................................... 1106 A. Overview of the Erie Doctrine’s Four Discrete Inquiries: Creation (Whether the Federal Law is Valid), Interpretation (What the Federal Law Means), Prioritization (How the Federal Law Interacts with State Law), and Adoption (Potential Sources of Non-Federal Law) ............................................................................. 1108 B. Relationship Between the Interpretation Inquiry (What a Federal Law Means) and the Prioritization Inquiry (How the Federal Law Interacts with State Law) .............................................................. 1110 II. Framework for Understanding the Erie Doctrine’s Approach to the Relative Priority of Federal and State Law .................................................. 1116 A. Sources of Confusion About Prioritization ........................................ 1116 1. Blurring of Erie’s Four Inquiries, Especially Regarding the Substance/Procedure Distinction ................................................. 1116 2. Fragmented Doctrinal Evolution Across Contexts and over Time ................................................................................................... 1119 3. Failure to Reconcile Erie with Preemption Jurisprudence ........ 1120 B. Current Applications of Erie’s Prioritization Inquiry ....................... 1122 1. The Constitution Has Priority over State Law ............................ 1123 2. Federal Statutes and Treaties Have Priority over State Law ..... 1123 3. Federal Rules and Regulations Promulgated Through a Statutorily Approved Process Have Priority over State Law .... 1126 4. The Priority of Federal Common Law Currently Depends on Several Loosely Related Standards .......................................... 1132 * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Thanks to Steve Burbank, Kevin Clermont, Zach Clopton, Myriam Gilles, Craig Green, Jill Hasday, and participants in the Stanford Law School Civil Procedure Workshop, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Constitutional Law Colloquium, and University of Minnesota Law School Faculty Workshop for helpful comments. 1101 First to Printer_Erbsen.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/7/20 7:28 AM 1102 UC IRVINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10:1101 a. Reasons Why the Prioritization Inquiry Is Difficult in Cases Involving Federal Common Law ............................... 1132 b. Reconstructing the Hanna Line of Case Law to Explain How Prioritization Currently Addresses Federal Common Law ........................................................................... 1137 c. Hanna’s Approach to Priority Cannot Rely on the Rules of Decision Act ........................................................................ 1141 III. Current Prioritization Jurisprudence Relies on an Unsustainable Distinction Between Federal Common Law and Other Categories of Federal Law ...................................................................................................... 1147 A. In the Rules Enabling Act Context, There Is No Bright Line Between Common Law and Statutorily Authorized Rules .............. 1148 1. The “Any Manner” Clauses: Justification for a Broad Interpretation of Judicial Authority to Create Procedural Common Law ................................................................................... 1149 2. The Any Manner Clauses Authorize Preemption of State Law ..................................................................................................... 1155 3. The Any Manner Clauses Erase the Line Between Formal Rules and Common Law Animating the Current Prioritization Inquiry ....................................................................... 1164 B. Outside the Enabling Act Context, Relying on a Distinction Between Federal Common Law and Other Sources of Federal Law Marginalizes Salient Policy Questions About Federal Common Law’s Validity, Scope, and Effect ...................................... 1167 1. Example: Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine .............................. 1167 2. Extrapolating Beyond Forum Non Conveniens ......................... 1170 IV. Recognizing the Flawed Assumptions Underlying Current Prioritization Doctrine Can Lead to a More Refined Application of Erie that Highlights Salient Concerns About Federalism and Separation of Powers ...................................................................................... 1170 A. The Prioritization Inquiry Should Implement the Supremacy Clause Rather than the “Twin Aims” Test and Therefore Will Be Relatively Simple in Most Cases ........................................................... 1171 B. Deemphasizing the Prioritization Inquiry Would Highlight Important Questions Under the Creation and Interpretation Inquiries About the Validity and Scope of Federal Law .................. 1172 1. Hanna Obscures Policy Questions About Preemption that the Creation and Interpretation Inquiries Directly Address ..... 1172 2. Spotlighting the Creation and Interpretation Inquiries Illuminates Problems Underlying Several Ostensibly Distinct Literatures ......................................................................................... 1174 a. Substantive Canons ................................................................. 1174 b. Lawmaking versus Interpretation .......................................... 1175 First to Printer_Erbsen.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/7/20 7:28 AM 2020] UNIFIED APPROACH 1103 c. The Legitimacy of Federal Common Law ........................... 1178 d. Substance versus Procedure ................................................... 1178 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 1180 INTRODUCTION This Article proposes toppling one of the Erie doctrine’s most prominent pillars.1 The relevant line of Erie jurisprudence governs a frequently recurring question in federal litigation: When federal and state law appear to conflict, which law should a court apply? An abstract example illustrates the question’s significance and difficulty. Suppose that the parties in a federal diversity action dispute whether the court should apply federal law or state law to resolve a particular issue. The court’s choice would end the case. One party would prevail under federal law, while the other would prevail under state law. The court’s choice of law would also have ramifications beyond determining the case’s outcome. Applying the wrong law would impair the spurned lawmaker’s regulatory interests, raising federalism and separation of powers concerns. Yet both options may seem wrong. State law is often incongruous in federal court, while federal law can be gratuitous in a diversity action that does not involve a federal claim. So how should the court decide which law applies? And how does that choice of law implicate related issues, such as the boundary between interpretation and lawmaking and the legitimacy of federal common law? Civil procedure students learn two answers to the choice-of-law puzzle. They start with a soothing formal rule and then drift into the turbulence of a balancing test. Students first learn that federal courts apply federal procedural law and state substantive law. This tidy bifurcation seems plausible until someone asks: “What’s the difference?” Students then learn that courts do not really enforce a strict substance/procedure distinction. Instead, courts apply a two-pronged choice-of-law rule cobbled together from several Supreme Court decisions. The first prong gives automatic priority to most types of federal law, such as statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The second prong subjects the remaining type of federal law—judge-made common law—to a multi-factored “twin aims” test announced in Hanna v. Plumer.2 Even the Supreme Court concedes that the twin aims test is “relatively unguided.”3 The Court’s unguided inquiry across slippery terrain produces disorientation. But the Court nevertheless believes that the current two-pronged method is an appropriate manifestation of policies animating Erie and its progeny. The unguided approach to choice of law in federal court is misguided for several reasons that this Article explores in depth. Current jurisprudence governing 1. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 2. 380 U.S. 460, 468 (1965). 3. Id. at 471. First to Printer_Erbsen.docx (Do Not Delete) 5/7/20 7:28 AM 1104 UC IRVINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 10:1101 vertical choice of law suffers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Erie and Preemption: Killing One Bird with Two Stones
    Erie and Preemption: Killing One Bird with Two Stones JEFFREY L. RENSBERGER* The Supreme Court has developed a standard account of the Erie doctrine. The Court has directed different analyses of Erie cases depending upon whether the federal law in question is in the form of a federal rule (or statute) or is instead a judge-made law. But the cases applying the doctrine are difficult to explain using the standard account. Although the Court and commentators have noted that Erie is a type of preemption, they provide little, if any, rigorous analysis of Erie in light of preemption doctrines. This Article attempts to fill that void, offering an extended analysis of Erie as a preemption doctrine. The analysis demonstrates how and why Erie constitutes a species of preemption. It then shows the appropriateness of preemption analysis to Erie problems whether one is dealing with a federal rule of civil procedure or with federal common law. Because preemption underlies both wings of the Erie doctrine, the standard account’s bifurcated approach is wrong. Moreover, employing doctrines developed in other preemption contexts explains the results of the Supreme Court’s Erie cases better than the Court’s own standard account. By making explicit the linkage between Erie and preemption, one can clarify the analysis and better predict and explain the results of the Supreme Court’s cases. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1591 I. SOME BASICS OF ERIE ....................................................................................... 1594 A. THE STANDARD ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 1594 B. RECURRENT PROBLEMS UNDER THE STANDARD ACCOUNT ................... 1600 II. SOME BASICS OF PREEMPTION ........................................................................ 1607 A. THE PREEMPTION TAXONOMY: THE CATEGORIES OF PREEMPTION ......
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : KING, ET AL., : : Consolidated Under Plaintiff, : MDL DOCKET NO 875 : v. : CASES LISTED IN EXHIBIT : “A” ATTACHED E.I. DUPOUNT DE NEMOURS AND : CO., ET AL., : : Defendants. : M E M O R A N D U M EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. AUGUST 25, 2010 I. BACKGROUND Before the Court is Defendant AMF Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed these cases claiming personal injury due to asbestos exposure in Texas state court in 1995. The cases were subsequently removed on the basis of federal enclave jurisdiction and federal officer jurisdiction and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania In August 2009, the Court ordered a severed group, which had been consolidated under lead Plaintiff Douglas King (“The King Group”), to submit a discovery plan. In October 2009, Defendant AMF filed a Motion to Stay, or alternatively, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for failure to comply with T EX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . CODE ANN . § 90.003 (Vernon 2005) “Chapter 90” in each case in the King group. 1 Of a group originally numbering over 800 plaintiffs, counsel has elected to pursue 86 individual cases. The instant motion applies to all 86 cases and is presently ripe for adjudication. Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed to file a medical report by a board certified physician indicating that the exposed party has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related cancer, or has asbestos-related pulmonary impairment, pursuant to T EX .
    [Show full text]
  • Pendent Jurisdiction: Applicability of the Erie Doctrine
    19571 COMMENTS fair-traded. When the integrated firm's loss from fair-trading qua manufac- turer is exceeded by its gain from wholesaling its own and other fair-traded goods qua wholesaler, this will tip the scales of its over-all interest in favor of resale price maintenance. In such a case the economic interest of an inte- grated manufacturer is not that of a non-integrated one but that of a whole- saler, and it can be said to be "acting as a wholesaler." Accordingly, its resale price-maintenance contracts should not qualify for immunity under Miller- Tydings. Because the integrated firm's balance of interests will at least occasionally be that of wholesaler, and because it is impractical to require a court to weigh nicely the respective gains and losses from resale price maintenance to determine when that condition exists, where the wholesaling facilities of an integrated manufacturer sell competing brands this should be sufficient justi- fication for regarding it as a wholesaler and condemning its participation in resale price maintenance.59 Since the McKesson & Robbins wholesale division purchased and resold competing brands the result reached by the court is consistent with the foregoing analysis. But upon that analysis it is equally clear that despite its broad language the McKesson case ought not to be taken to condemn resale price maintenance by a firm which "compete[s]" 0 with those with whom it contracts only by performing similar functions solely with respect to its own manufactured products. Finally, the autonomous nature of the McKesson manufacturing division, and the care taken to assure that the price-maintenance contracts were negotiated and executed exclusive- ly by that division0 ' suggests that the decision is not to be avoided by a separate incorporation of the integrated facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Erie Doctrine - (And What Does It Mean for the Contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism) Adam N
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 84 | Issue 1 Article 5 11-1-2008 What Is the Erie Doctrine - (and what does it mean for the contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism) Adam N. Steinman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Adam N. Steinman, What Is the Erie Doctrine - (and what does it mean for the contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism), 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 245 (2008). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol84/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT IS THE ERIE DOCTRINE? (AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF JUDICIAL FEDERALISM?) Adam N. Steinman* As when Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided seventy years ago, federal courts today are seen as more favorable to corporate and business interests than many of their state-court brethren. The current situation is due in no small part to federal courts' comparatively pro-defendant approaches to summary judgment, class certification, and other procedural issues. The Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which tilts federal pleading standards in favor of defendants, will likely have similarfederalism implications. This Article presents a straightforward argument that the Erie doctrine may require federal courts to follow state-law standards on summary judgment, class certification, and pleading. This argument has strong support in Supreme Court case-law and the black-letterframework for resolving Erie issues, yet it would significantly recalibratethe conventional understandingof judicial federalism in civil adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Erie Doctrine and Federal Rule 13(A)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1962 The rE ie Doctrine and Federal Rule 13(a) Minn. L. Rev. Editorial Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Editorial Board, Minn. L. Rev., "The rE ie Doctrine and Federal Rule 13(a)" (1962). Minnesota Law Review. 2779. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2779 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes The Erie Doctrine and Federal Rule 13(a) The rationale of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins jeopardizes the applicability of many of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure in diversity cases. The author of this Note analyzes both the nature of the federal compulsory counterclaim provision and the current standing of the Erie doctrine. He concludes that the strong federal policies behind the compulsory counterclaim rule require that it be applied in diversity cases. In the leading case of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,' the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts are bound to apply state law in adjudicating nonfederal questions involving substantive rules of law. The impact of this case was profound and far-reaching; Judge Learned Hand was once moved to remark, "I don't suppose a civil appeal can now be argued to us without counsel sooner or later quoting large portions of Erie Railroad v.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplifying the Prophecy of Justiciability in Cases Concerning Foreign Affairs: a Political Act of State Question Deborah Azar
    Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business Volume 9 | Issue 4 Article 5 2010 Simplifying the Prophecy of Justiciability in Cases Concerning Foreign Affairs: A Political Act of State Question Deborah Azar Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah Azar, Simplifying the Prophecy of Justiciability in Cases Concerning Foreign Affairs: A Political Act of State Question, 9 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 471 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global/vol9/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SIMPLIFYING THE PROPHECY OF JUSTICIABILITY IN CASES CONCERNING FOREIGN AFFAIRS: A POLITICAL ACT OF STATE QUESTION Deborah Azar Justiciability doctrines in the foreign affairs arena have been described as involving large elements of prophecy. First, this article will examine the justifications and application of the political question doctrine in cases involving foreign affairs. Second, this article will discuss the jus- tifications and application of the act of state and political question doc- trines. Third, this article will analyze whether the act of state doctrine can be encompassed within the political question doctrine. Fourth, this article will propose a framework that can be applied in cases involving political questions in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 472 II. BACKGROUND ........................................... 473 A. Application of the Political Question Doctrine in In- ternational Cases ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • How the Erie Doctrine Became Structurally Incoherent (And How Congress Can Fix It)
    Fordham Law Review Volume 82 Issue 6 Article 21 2014 Toil and Trouble: How the Erie Doctrine Became Structurally Incoherent (and How Congress Can Fix It) Alan M. Trammell Brooklyn Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan M. Trammell, Toil and Trouble: How the Erie Doctrine Became Structurally Incoherent (and How Congress Can Fix It), 82 Fordham L. Rev. 3249 (2014). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol82/iss6/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOIL AND TROUBLE: HOW THE ERIE DOCTRINE BECAME STRUCTURALLY INCOHERENT (AND HOW CONGRESS CAN FIX IT) Alan M. Trammell* The Erie doctrine is still a minefield. It has long been a source of frustration for scholars and students, and recent case law has exacerbated the troubles. Although other scholars have noted and criticized these developments, this Article explores a deeper systemic problem that remains undeveloped in the literature. In its present form, the Erie doctrine fails to protect any coherent vision of the structural interests that supposedly are at its core—federalism, separation of powers, and equality. This Article argues that Congress has the power to fix nearly all of these problems. Accordingly, it proposes a novel statute to revamp the Erie doctrine in a way that actually protects important structural interests and also streamlines the doctrine to make it more easily administrable.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Common Law and the Erie-Byrd Rule Richard W
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 12 Article 3 Issue 3 Spring 1983 1983 Federal Common Law and the Erie-Byrd Rule Richard W. Bourne University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bourne, Richard W. (1983) "Federal Common Law and the Erie-Byrd Rule," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 12: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol12/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERAL COMMON LAW AND THE ERIE-BYRD RULE Richard W. Bournet From theirfirst year in law school through their careers, attor- neys have been mystffed by the twists and turns of the Erie doc- trine and the seemingly incompatible unfolding of what Judge Friendly labeled the "new federal common law. " The author attempts afresh reconciliation through a review of both bodies of law. He concludes that in areasnot directly covered by either the Constitution or ederal statutes,federal courts are author- ized to resolve con icts between federal and state rules through application of a ederal procedural common law in much the same way that t ey have worked to resolve conflicts with state policy in areas offederal substantive concern. I. INTRODUCTION In overruling Swift v.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Federal Courts Follow State Statutory Interpretation Methodologies?
    TAGERT IN PRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 9/23/2016 2:19 PM TO ERIE OR NOT TO ERIE: DO FEDERAL COURTS FOLLOW STATE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION METHODOLOGIES? J. STEPHEN TAGERT† ABSTRACT The Erie doctrine requires federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law if applying federal law would change the outcome of the case. If statutory interpretation methodologies affect the outcomes of cases and state courts give them stare decisis effect, does Erie require federal courts to use state interpretation methodologies when applying state substantive law? This Note examines whether federal courts are already applying state interpretation methodologies when they interpret state statutes by examining state statutory interpretation cases heard in Michigan federal courts interpreting Michigan statutes. This Note examines Michigan state cases because its supreme court established a distinct statutory interpretation methodology that it uses as precedent for all cases. For the most part, federal courts do not appear to use Michigan statutory interpretation techniques when they interpret Michigan law. Instead, they use a variety of inconsistent tests. This Note argues that a better approach would be for the federal courts to apply Erie to statutory interpretation and use state interpretation methods to interpret state statutes. This Note adds to the current statutory interpretation literature by examining how lower federal courts interpret federal and state statutes and investigating whether they treat both sets differently. Because more than 99 percent of statutory interpretation cases do not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, how lower courts interpret statutes matters for case outcomes and for litigants gauging their likelihood of success.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to the Basics of Erie
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2014 Back to the Basics of Erie Diane P. Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Diane P. Wood, "Back to the Basics of Erie," 18 Lewis and Clark Law Review 673 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BACK TO THE BASICS OF ERIE by Diane P. Wood INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 673 I. BEFORE ERIE................................................... 674 II. THE DECISION IN ERIE.......................................... 678 A. The Rules EnablingAct and the FederalRules of Civil Procedure. 679 B. The Decision in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins............ 680 C. What Erie Said.................................... 681 III. AFTER ERIE-THE "DOCTRINE ................................. 682 A. Defining the Sorting Function ..................... ..... 682 1. Early Cases and the Development of "Outcome Determination ....................................... 682 2. Byrd, Hanna, and "Arguably Procedural"............. 684 3. The Gasperini Puzzle................... ........ 686 B. FashioningFederal-Common-Law Rules ofDecision..... ..... 687 1. United States as a Party................ ............... 688
    [Show full text]
  • The Erie Doctrine: a Flowchart
    William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2018 The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart Michael S. Green William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Repository Citation Green, Michael S., "The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart" (2018). Faculty Publications. 1991. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1991 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE ERIE DOCTRINE: A FLOWCHART Michael S. Green * I. Introduction ............................................................... 2 15 II. The Four Considerations in an Erie Problem ............ 216 A. Sovereignty Considerations ................................ 216 B. Borrowing Considerations .................................. 222 C. Countervailing Considerations ............................ 225 D. Separation-of-Powers Considerations ................. 226 II: The Flow chart ............................................................ 228 III. Explanations .............................................................. 233 IV . C onclusion ................................................................. 257 I. INTRODUCTION A flowchart belongs in a commercial outline. Why would any self- respecting legal scholar write a symposium piece presenting one? Well, the Erie
    [Show full text]
  • The Still Unrepressed Myth of Erie
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 18 Article 2 Issue 3 Spring 1989 1989 The tS ill Unrepressed Myth of Erie Darrell N. Braman Jr. T. Rowe Price Group Inc. Mark D. Neumann Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Braman, Darrell N. Jr. and Neumann, Mark D. (1989) "The tS ill Unrepressed Myth of Erie," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 18: Iss. 3, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol18/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW Copyright© 1989 by The University of Baltimore Law Review. All rights reserved. Volume Eighteen Spring 1989 Number Three THE STILL UNREPRESSED MYTH OF ERIE Darrell N. Braman, Jr.t Mark D. Neumannt Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION . 404 II. THE RULES OF DECISION ACT .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 407 A. Supreme Court Decisions Interpreting the RDA......... 407 1. The Swift Doctrine . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 407 2. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins . 408 3. York Outcome Determination.................... 410 4. The Byrd Balancing Test. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 411 5. Hanna and Refined Outcome Determination...... 412 B. Application of the RDA in the Federal Courts .......... 414 1. Issues Resolvable with Refined Outcome Determination . 414 a. Medical Malpractice Tribunals................. 414 b. Door-Closing Statutes . 421 c. Res Judicata Rules .
    [Show full text]