Apply State Law

(Erie & RDA)

28 U.S.C. 1652
Fed Rule on Point?
Look to 2 aims of Erie
1. Avoid Forum Shop
2. Avoid unfair admin of
state/fed laws.
Hanna Holding
(Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460)
State Law does NOT control
when there exists:
A) applicable federal rule
that; B) conflicts with the
state law or policy which
does not violate the REA
(SEE REA BELOW)
3 Part Byrd Test
(Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 78 S. Ct. 893, 2 L. Ed. 2d 953)
Brennan noted that:The Erie doctrine does not mandate that state law be
applied in determinations of rights regardless of conflict with federal
law and the Constitution.
1. Is state rule bound up with state created rights & obligations?
(SUBSTANTIVE Outcome Determinative question)
YES NO
Apply
State Law
BALANCE

NO
Erie Doctrine Flowchart:
The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws
YES
YES
2. Federal
Countervailing
Interests
(for fed law)

Always have
uniformity, but weak
on its own. Byrd was
judge/jury relationship
which outweighed
outcome determinacy.
3. Outcome
Determinative test
(for state law)

If outcome would be
different depending
on which law applies
(i.e. statute of
limitations is very
determinative if its
run in state and not
fed).
REA:
Rules Enabling Act
(28 U.S.C. 2072 ) =
Valid so long as:
1 Fed rule actually applies
2 Fed/St. rule in actual conflict
Apply
Federal
Law
Apply
State
Outcome Determinative Test:
(Comes from the York Case)
If the state rule, when applied,
would change the outcome of the
case, then it is substantive and
trumps the fed procedure. Fed Procedure > State
Substantive so long as:
It does not Modify,
Enlarge, or abridge any
State Substantive right.
State
Substantive
Law (bound up
in Rights and
Obligations?)
USE FEDERAL
LAW/
PROCEDURE
If Unsure
YES
NO