The Erie Doctrine provides that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction over a state law claim must apply state substantive common law in resolving the dispute. The United States of America —commonly referred to as the The federal government of the United States is the central United States Governmental body established by the United States Constitution. Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to Justiciability refers to the ability of a text to take effect as a legal rule or to create legal effects An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a Court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific Legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or For other senses of this word see Standing (disambiguation. In the Common law, and under many Statutes standing or In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for Litigation; " a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court declining to rule in a case because In Law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak" is the practical Authority Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a Court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a Defendant to move a Lawsuit filed in state Court to the Federal district Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States Civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking The US Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 USC Sections 1332(d 1453 and 1711-1715 expanded federal jurisdiction over many large Class-action Personal jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over a particular defendant ( In personam jurisdiction or an item of property Jurisdiction in rem ( Latin, power about or against "the thing") is a legal term describing the power a Court may exercise Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States Law of Civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a Court in one state Political federalism is a Political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin foedus, covenant) with a governing An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a Court of law might (or in some cases must apply to refuse to hear a case when hearing the case would potentially intrude Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in Common law Jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's Sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of Civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases Rooker v The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the American legal system that stems from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' watershed opinion in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Law is a system of rules enforced through a set of Institutions used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience politics economics and society Doctrine (Latin doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings quot or "instructions" taught principles or positions as the Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to The United States of America —commonly referred to as the The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. Louis Dembitz Brandeis ( November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941) was an American litigator, Supreme Court Justice, advocate A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a Precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1938 ( MCMXXXVIII) was a Common year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar of the Gregorian calendar. That decision overturned a previous decision of the court, Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state, in cases based on diversity jurisdiction. Swift v Tyson, 41 US 1 ( 1842) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that United States federal courts The United States federal courts are the system of Courts organized under the Constitution and laws of the Federal government of the United States A US state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States of America that share Sovereignty with the federal government A court is a forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour administrative and criminal Justice under its In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U
Brandeis' opinion in Erie is usually considered his most influential, and Erie itself is one of the most often cited cases in federal judicial opinions.
Contents |
Scope of Erie
The Erie Doctrine today applies regardless of how the federal court may hear a state claim. Whether the federal court decides a state law issue vis-a-vis supplemental jurisdiction or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state common law when deciding state law issues. See, generally, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966) and Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48 (1979).
Origin of the Erie doctrine
The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts Political federalism is a Political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin foedus, covenant) with a governing The United States of America —commonly referred to as the Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U. The United States Congress is the bicameral Legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses The Rules of Decision Act requires that federal courts apply state law in their decisions except when in conflict with federal law S. C. 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state. Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of Texas in resolving a case before it. Texas ( is a state geographically located in the South Central United States and is also known as the Lone Star State.
Swift v. Tyson
The Supreme Court's decision in Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842), had defined the laws of the state as meaning only laws passed by legislatures of that state (though Justice Joseph Story writing for the court suggested that federal courts should pay special attention to how the "local tribunals" of a state would resolve a dispute). Swift v Tyson, 41 US 1 ( 1842) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that United States federal courts Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1842 ( MDCCCXLII) was a Common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar of the Gregorian Calendar (or a Common Joseph Story ( September 18, 1779 &ndash September 10, 1845) was an American Lawyer and Jurist who served on Thus, on issues of "general common law," a federal court was free to ignore decisions by a state's highest court.
Aftermath of Swift
The decision in Swift resulted in inconsistent judicial rulings in the same state on the same legal issue depending on whether a plaintiff brought a case in state or federal court. Swift v Tyson, 41 US 1 ( 1842) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that United States federal courts In one case, for example, Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co. 276 U.S. 518 (1928), the Brown and Yellow Cab Company, a Kentucky corporation, sought to create a business association with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, where Brown and Yellow would have a monopoly on soliciting passengers of the railroad, effectively eliminating the competition, the Black and White Cab Co. Black & White Taxicab Co v Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co, 276 US 518 (1928 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1928 ( MCMXXVIII) was a Leap year starting on Sunday (link will display full calendar of the Gregorian calendar. The Commonwealth of Kentucky ( is a state located in the East Central United States of America. A corporation is a separate legal entity usually used to conduct business The Louisville and Nashville Railroad was a Class I railroad that operated freight and passenger services in the southeast United States. Such an agreement was illegal under Kentucky common law, as interpreted by Kentucky's highest court. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Brown and Yellow dissolved itself, reincorporated in Tennessee, and executed the agreement there, where such an agreement was legal, bringing suit against Black and White in a Kentucky federal court to prevent them from soliciting passengers. Tennessee ( is a state located in the Southern United States. The federal court upheld the agreement, citing Swift, and arguing that under general federal common law, the agreement was valid. If Brown and Yellow had brought suit in a Kentucky state court, the agreement would not have been upheld.
The Erie decision
The decision in Erie involved a railroad accident. Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts The plaintiff, Tompkins, was walking alongside Erie's railroad tracks in Pennsylvania when a train passed. A plaintiff ( Π in Legal shorthand) also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a Lawsuit The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ( often colloquially referred to as PA (its abbreviation by natives and Northeasterners is a state located in the Northeastern An open door struck him and knocked him under the train, severing his arm. In most states, Tompkins could sue for negligence of the railroad and recover monetary damages for his loss. Negligence (Lat negligentia from negligere to neglect literally "not to pick up" is a legal concept in the Common law legal systems usually used to In Pennsylvania, however, Tompkins would have been considered a trespasser, and would not be able to recover for an ordinary negligence claim in their state court (He would have to prove "wanton" negligence). Trespass (Fr trespas a crime properly a stepping across from Lat Thus, Tompkins brought his case in federal court to avoid the unfavorable state law. He subsequently won. However, on appeal the Supreme Court held, in an opinion drafted by Justice Brandeis, that such decisions and inconsistent rulings based on a general federal common law were unconstitutional, and that decisions by a State's Supreme Court were "laws" that federal courts were bound to follow under the Rule of Decision Act. Constitutionality is the status of a law, a procedure or an act's accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable Constitution. Brandeis noted that the Court felt that Swift allowed federal courts to make unconstitutional modifications of the substantive law of a state, violating the right to equal protection under the law (but Brandeis did not mean in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Fourteenth Amendment ( Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post- Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first Interestingly, neither of the parties in Erie asked the Supreme Court to reverse Swift, so the Court did so on its own initiative.
Development of the doctrine
Several later cases have added to the vague Erie decision (Brandeis cited no provision of the Constitution that Swift violated, although theoretically it might have violated the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the state). A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a Court, or by some equivalent legal process Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts Swift v Tyson, 41 US 1 ( 1842) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that United States federal courts The Tenth Amendment ( Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, Speaking generally, there are two approaches in determining whether a federal court will apply a state law: (1) the Hanna & Rules Enabling Act approach, per 28 USC 2072 when there is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and statute that conflicts with a state law; and (2) the Byrd-Erie approach when there is as conflict between a state and federal practice. Hanna v Plumer, 380 US 460 ( 1965) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the doctrine The Rules Enabling Act (ch 651,) is an Act of Congress that gave the Judicial branch the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP are rules governing Civil procedure in United States district (federal courts that is court procedures for Civil A statute is a formal written enactment of a Legislative authority that governs a Country, State, City, or County. State law in the United States, is the Law of each separate U
The Hanna approach
Under this approach, established by Hanna v. Plumer, , the federal court of a state hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction should apply state law in the event of conflict between state and federal law if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens. Hanna v Plumer, 380 US 460 ( 1965) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the doctrine The United States district courts are the general Trial courts of the United States federal court system. A state is a political association with effective Sovereignty over a geographic Area and representing a Population. In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in Civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U State law in the United States, is the Law of each separate U The Supreme Court has defined substantive rights as, "rights conferred by the law to be protected and enforced by the adjective law of judicial procedure. A supreme court, also called a court of last resort or high court, is in some Jurisdictions the highest judicial body within that jurisdiction's " Sibbach v. Wilson 312 U.S. 1 (1941). Sibbach v Wilson, 312 US 1 ( 1941) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that important and substantial Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1941 ( MCMXLI) was a Common year starting on Wednesday (the link will display 1941 calendar of the Gregorian calendar. An example of a substantive right would be a state law on fraud, which may vary widely in composition depending on the jurisdiction. In the broadest sense a fraud is a Deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual If the state law is merely procedural --i. e. , relating merely to the form and mode of judicial operations-- then the federal court does not have to apply the conflicting state law. However, the substance-procedure distinction is a generality as the Court rejected any test based upon "litmus paper criterion. " Thus, a choice between state and federal law must be made with reference to the underlying policy of the Erie decision. The Court announced a modification of the "outcome-determinative" test in York, whereby the test must be applied in light of the twin aims of Erie, which are the discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws. Under this rule, state procedural law would not supplant federal procedural law if the differences in the outcome are nonsubstantial or trivial, fail to raise Equal Protection concerns, and are unlikely to influence the choice of forum.
The Byrd-Erie approach
This approach suggests that unless there is a major countervailing federal policy that trumps the state practice, if ignoring the state law would lead to forum shopping by plaintiffs and unequal administration of the laws (like in Yellow Cab above), the court should apply the state law. The main goal of the Erie decision was to prevent "forum-shopping," a practice where plaintiffs choose a legal forum simply because of the probability of a more favorable ruling. Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some Litigants to get their Legal case heard in the Court thought most likely A plaintiff ( Π in Legal shorthand) also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a Lawsuit Venue is the location where a case is heard In the United States, the venue is either a county (for cases in state court or a district or division (for cases in federal court The main problem with the decision is that sometimes there is simply no state law or practice on which a federal court may defer. Federal judges are left to guess how a state court would rule on a given legal question, and a state court is in no way bound by a federal decision interpreting their own state law.
Justice Frankfurter in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, summarizes the main point of Erie differently. Guaranty Trust Co v York, 326 US 99 ( 1945) was a United States Supreme Court case that described how federal courts were to follow state . . "In essence, the intent of that decision was to insure that, in all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court. . . . " This suggests that Erie's main goal was to achieve equal protection under the law. One way that equal protection is intentionally disregarded would be through "forum shopping," but the reduction of inequality was the main target of the doctrine. Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some Litigants to get their Legal case heard in the Court thought most likely
Gasperini
A recent Supreme Court case that addressed the Erie problem is Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, . Gasperini is a post-Hanna decision addressing a conflict between state and federal law for review of jury verdicts. The plaintiff, a famous photographer from New York, sued a New York museum, in federal court in New York, for the damages caused by the loss of some photographs and slides he had loaned them. A jury found in his favor and awarded damages. The defendant appealed, and the 2nd Circuit reduced the damages award on appeal. Gasperini appealed to the Supreme Court.
The New York state law, a sort of "tort reform" allowed the court of appeals to overturn the verdict if it "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation. Tort reform refers to the idea of changing the rules applicable to the Law of Tort. " Pursuant to this law, the 2nd Circuit applied the state's appellate standard of review. However, Federal courts, bound by the reexamination clause of the 7th Amendment, could overturn a jury's finding of fact only if it "shocked the conscience. "
The Supreme Court could have resolved the case by reading the 7th Amendment broadly, and treating it as controlling in federal court. However, instead, the Court opted for a compromise, holding that the federal court should apply the state's lower standard review, but in a way that would not run afoul of the 7th Amendment; instead of the circuit court reviewing the jury finding, the trial judge would assume the role.
Gasperini, and another recent Erie case, Semtek, have shown Erie has gone in a newer and even more complicated direction than the previous controlling cases, and that instead of selecting either federal or state law for a case, the federal court may be required to somehow blend federal and state law, depending on the issue. This is quite frustrating for students who wish to have an answer, or at least a black letter rule that will point them at the answer. However, the possibility of blending in Erie does not open up an infinitude of possibilities. In both Gasperini and Semtek, the common thread is that the blending is done in a way that is calculated to advance the aims of Erie (and York): non-discrimination, and non-encouragement of forum shopping. Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some Litigants to get their Legal case heard in the Court thought most likely (Source: Allan Ides & Christopher May, Civil Procedure, 3d Edition).
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic