Erie Doctrine

Question 1

What is the Erie Doctrine?

Answer 1

The general rule of the Erie Doctrine is that when exercising diversity jurisdiction (for obvious reasons this would not work with a federal question), the court must generally apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting

Question 2

Under Erie, when may a court apply Federal Law (make an exception to the general rule)? Go through steps 1-4 in that order to determine which law is applicable:

Answer 2

1. If there is a federal law (i.e. Constitution, or FRCP) that is on point, and directly conflicts with the state law, then apply federal law
   a. *No procedural rule has ever been held to modify substantive rights
2. If there is no Federal law on point than the judge must apply state law if the law at issue is substantive (4 prima facie substantive laws):
   a. Elements of a claim or a defense
   b. Statute of Limitations
   c. Rules for tolling the SOL
   d. Conflict (or choice) of laws
3. If not FL on point or a prima facie state Substantive law then the sitting judge must determine whether the law is substantive: the law is very unclear here, there are 3 factors and their weight has not been determined in relation to each other (sort of balancing test)
   a. Outcome Determinative – Would ignoring the state law effect the outcome of the case (if so probably substantive) b. Balance of Interests – Does either state or federal have a strong interest in having the law applied?
   c. Avoid Forum Shopping: Would applying the federal law cause parties to flock ot the federal courts
4. There is no federal common law, must apply state common law:
   a. Exception: Where there are gaps in the common law the federal court may fill those gaps (with none other than federal common law), also the federal court may create federal common law in the following circumstances:
   i. International Relations
   ii. Disputes Between States
   iii. The Right to Sue a Federal Officer