Erie Doctrine Flowchart:

The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws

If Unsure

State
Substantive Fed Rule on Point? 3 Part Byrd Test
NO Look to 2 aims of Erie (Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 78 S. Ct. 893, 2 L. Ed. 2d 953)
Law (bound up
in Rights and 1. Avoid Forum Shop Brennan noted that:The Erie doctrine does not mandate that state law be
Obligations?) 2. Avoid unfair admin of applied in determinations of rights regardless of conflict with federal
state/fed laws. law and the Constitution.
YES 1. Is state rule bound up with state created rights & obligations?
NO
(SUBSTANTIVE Outcome Determinative question)
Hanna Holding
Apply State Law (Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460)
YES NO
(Erie & RDA) State Law does NOT control
28 U.S.C. 1652 when there exists: Apply
A) applicable federal rule Apply Federal
that; B) conflicts with the State Law BALANCE Law
Outcome Determinative Test: state law or policy which
(Comes from the York Case) does not violate the REA
(SEE REA BELOW)
If the state rule, when applied,
would change the outcome of the YES
case, then it is substantive and
Fed Procedure > State 2. Federal 3. Outcome
trumps the fed procedure.
Substantive so long as: Countervailing Determinative test
It does not Modify, Interests (for state law)
Enlarge, or abridge any (for fed law)
If outcome would be
State Substantive right.
REA: Always have different depending
Rules Enabling Act YES uniformity, but weak on which law applies
(28 U.S.C. 2072 ) = on its own. Byrd was (i.e. statute of
Valid so long as: Apply
USE FEDERAL judge/jury relationship limitations is very
1 Fed rule actually applies State
LAW/ which outweighed determinative if its
2 Fed/St. rule in actual conflict PROCEDURE outcome determinacy. run in state and not
fed).