Erie 2

Question 1

Walker rule

Answer 1

If FRCP not sufficiently broad to create unavoidable direct conflict, the Hanna analysis does not apply. Instead look to twin aims of Erie and apply state substantive law

Question 2

Walker holding

Answer 2

Rule 3 is not as broad as plaintiff claims and does not toll the state SoL, so state SoL should be applied

Question 3

Walker facts

Answer 3

Action barred by state SoL because action commenced on service of process but Rule 3 says action commenced upon filing

Question 4

Walker reason 1

Answer 4

Rule 3 just says when commenced and not intended to toll state SoL, state statute substantive decision with policy aims so can exist side by side and no Hanna analysis, FRCP says nothing about service

Question 5

Walker reason 2

Answer 5

twin aims of Erie control. probably wouldn’t lead to forum shopping but would lead to inequitable admin

Question 6

Walker reason 3

Answer 6

If different outcomes inequitable admin, then not really independent prong

Question 7

Walker reason 4

Answer 7

outcome determinative but not at onset

Question 8

Counterargument for Walker rule being substantive

Answer 8

limited right to recover and SoL part of that right itsefl

Question 9

Gasperini rul

Answer 9

If state rule is both substantive and procedural, may be possible to give effect to substantive thrust of the rule under Erie without altering federal scheme under Byrd

Question 10

Gasperini Hanna/York analysis

Answer 10

test is not mechanical, guided by twin aims, Erie would preclude recovery significantly larger than would be in state court

Question 11

Byrd analysis in Gasperini

Answer 11

abuse of discretion standard for federal courts of appeal is reoncilable with 7th amendment, unlike Byrd can accomodate both

Question 12

Scalia gasperini dissent

Answer 12

Rulr 59 broad enough that direct collision so Hanna applies and must apply Fed rule (no Erie q)

Question 13

Shady Grove rule

Answer 13

if a federalrule governs only the matter and the means by which rights enforced, it is valid under REA. If it alters rules of decision by which courts will adjudicate those rights, it is not

Question 14

the shocks the conscience standard for review came from

Answer 14

Federal common law

Question 15

Binding part of Shady Grove

Answer 15

direct collision under the Hanna test

Question 16

The Scalia plurality in Shady Grove says

Answer 16

not the substantive or procedural nature of the state law, but the nature of the Federal Rule that determines its validity.

Question 17

Scalia shady grove plurality says

Answer 17

Valid regardless of its incidental effect on state-created substantive rights; divergence from state law with forum shopping consequences is the inevitable (perhaps intended) result of a uniform system of federal procedure

Question 18

Shady Grove Stevens plurality says

Answer 18

If a federal rule displaces a state rule that is “procedural” in the ordinary sense of the term, but sufficiently interwoven with the scope of a substantive right or remedy, there would be an Enabling Act problem, and the federal rule would have to give way

Question 19

Stevens plurality says substantive purpose of state law must be __

Answer 19

Substantive purpose of state law has to be much clearer to displace a federal rule