Civil Procedure Erie Outline
Case
Swift v. Tyson
Author
Story
Year
1842
Significance
Federal General Common Law

 “Local” Questions v. “General” Matters.


Notes
Where matters were considered “local” the
decisions of the state tribunals controlled.
However, where matters were considered
“general” the federal courts were allowed to
create their own substantive body of law.
Resulted in creating Federal “General
Common” Law.
Note: Before the FRCP were created the
procedural laws of the state were used.
Erie Railroad v.
Tompkins
Brandeis
1938
SHIFT IN APPROACH
 Eliminated Federal “General Common”
Law.
 “Laws” now include both written law
and precedent.
Issue: Discrimination resulted – a Π of diverse
citizenship was able to choose whether state or
federal law would apply by forum shopping.
Twin Aims:
1. Discouragement of Forum-Shopping.
2. Avoidance of inequitable administration
of the laws.
Substance v. Procedure Test:
 “Substantive” matters to be governed by State
law.
 “Procedural” matters to be governed by
Federal law.
Issue: How to clearly define what is
“substantive” v. what is “procedural.”
Civil Procedure
1
4/25/2019
Civil Procedure Erie Outline
Case
Guaranty Trust
Co. v. York
Byrd v. Blue Ridge
Rural Electric
Author
Frankfurter
Brennan
Year
1945
1958
Significance
Outcome-Determinative Test
 State law controls when the choice
between State & Federal law is
Outcome-Determinative.
Balancing of Considerations
 Weighing the Policies underlying the
Federal Rules v. State Rules.
Hanna v. Plumer
Warren
1965
Rescues the Federal Rules
 Refines the Outcome-Determinative
Standard.
Burlington
Northern Railroad
v. Woods
Marshall
1987
Incidental Effect

Walker v. Armco
Steel
Marshall
1980
Federal Rule Controls Only Where
Applicable

Notes
 When legal rules determine the outcome of a
litigation, the result shall not be different if
the lawsuit is brought in State court or if it
was brought in Federal court in diversity.
Issue: Virtually every Federal Procedure Rule
could affect the outcome of a case to some
degree.
 Attempt to restore the proper equilibrium
between Federal & State interests unsettled by
York.
 In deciding judge-jury allocation, follow the
Federal principles not the State principles.
Issue: Lack of an objective standard by which to
evaluate the competing practices.
 Federal Procedural Rules are not overridden
by State law or policy.
 Erie does not control when there exists an
applicable Federal Rule that conflicts with the
State law or policy.
 Rules which incidentally affect a litigants’
substantive rights do not violate the Rules
Enabling Act if reasonably necessary to
maintain the integrity of that system of rules.
 Federal Procedure Rules only control under
the Rules Enabling Act if the Federal Rule is
applicable.
Issue: Determining if a Rule is applicable.
Civil Procedure
2
4/25/2019