Erie Doctrine Flowchart:
The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws
If Unsure
State
Substantive
Law (bound up
in Rights and
Obligations?)
YES
Apply State Law
(Erie & RDA)
28 U.S.C. § 1652
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.
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
NO
Fed Rule on Point?
Look to 2 aims of Erie
1. Avoid Forum Shop
2. Avoid unfair admin of
state/fed laws.
NO
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)
Hanna Holding
(Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460)
YES
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
Apply
State Law
NO
BALANCE
(SEE REA BELOW)
YES
2. Federal
Countervailing
Interests
(for fed law)
Fed Procedure > State
Substantive so long as:
It does not Modify,
Enlarge, or abridge any
State Substantive right.
YES
USE FEDERAL
LAW/
PROCEDURE
Apply
State
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).
Apply
Federal
Law