Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Erie And Hanna Outline

Law Outlines > Civil Procedure Outlines

This is an extract of our Erie And Hanna document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of NYU School Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

ERIE AND HANNA Governing Law in a Diversity Case Another forum for division-of-powers tension in Federalism
? Constitutional provisions always trump state laws (except 7th amendment only applies to Federal courts); Federal statutes govern, as long as they are valid (arguably procedural). Rules of Decision Act (28 USC SS 1652) The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. Rules Enabling Act (28 USC SS 2072) a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals. (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. i. Swift v Tyson (1842)
? Judges applied state statutes if there was one on point, but federal common law, used the procedural rules of the state in which they sat
? Tension b/w states rights and fostering interstate commerce ii. Black & White Taxicab Co. v Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co.
? Black and Yellow had an exclusive dealings contract with a railroad. Kentucky common law didn't enforce those clauses, so it reincorporated in Tennessee to get diversity, then brought suit in federal court in Kentucky, since federal common law did enforce them iii. Erie v Tompkins (1938)
? Brandeis thinks Swift v Tyson not pragmatic, and violates equal protection, 10th Amendment powers reserved to states; b/c of new scholarship, we should understand the RDA differently
? Substantive question was duty to trespasser near railroad tracks. No duty in PA.
? Powers to make law are reserved to state, no reason common law should be different from statute;
? Twin aims of Erie (as described in Hanna):
? Prevent forum shopping
? Ensure equal protection of laws by not having one set of laws if you sue from in state and different set of laws if you sue from out of state iv. Sibbach v Wilson (1941)

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.