erie diagnostic.txt

  1. 1. As a general matter, a United States District Court (�USDC�) sitting in diversity will apply federal procedural law and state substantive law."
    1. T
  2. 2. A USDC sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits.
    2. F
  3. 3. Substantive law can be generally understood as the law applicable to everyday human activities.
    3. T
  4. 4. Procedural law can be generally understood as the law applicable to matters arising in the context of litigation.
    4. T
  5. 5. The word �laws� in the Rules of Decision Act includes the common law decisions of the relevant state�s courts.
    5. T
  6. 6. The critical flaw in the regime of Swift v. Tyson was the Supreme Court�s failure to develop an adequate distinction between �general� and �local� law.
    6. F
  7. "7. As described by the Supreme Court in Erie RR v. Tompkins, the common law is a collection of principles binding across state lines and discoverable only through a process of careful reasoning."
    7. F
  8. "8. Under the Rules of Decision Act, neither Congress nor a federal court has constitutional authority to create what is in-essence state law."
    8. T
  9. 9. There is no federal general common law.
    9. T
  10. "10. Under the Supremacy Clause, valid federal law always trumps state law to the contrary."
    10. T
  11. 11. The Article III power to create inferior courts augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress with the authority to regulate procedures in federal courts.
    11. T
  12. "12. Under Track One analysis, a federal procedural statute will be deemed valid so long as it is not classifiable as procedural."
    12. F
  13. "13. Before assessing the validity of a federal procedural statute, one must determine if the statute is sufficiently broad to control the issue presented."
    13. T
  14. "14. Valid federal procedural statute may not be applied if doing so would abridge, enlarge or modify a state substantive right."
    14. F
  15. 15. A valid federal procedural statute can never violate the Rules of Decision Act.
    15. T
  16. 16. A judicial interpretation of a federal statute is subject to a stricter validity measure than would be the literal text of the statute.
    16. F
  17. 17. There are several categories of specialized federal common law all of which are traceable to the powers vested in the national government by the US Constitution.
    17. F
  18. 18. The Rules Enabling Act (�REA�) provides a delegation from Congress to the Supreme Court that authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure in cases in United States district courts and courts of appeals.
    18. T
  19. 19. The test to determine if a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (�FRCP�) is applicable to a particular issue is identical to the test used to determine whether a federal statute would be applicable to a particular issue.
    19. T
  20. 20. The test to determine if an FRCP is valid is identical to the test used to measure the validity of a federal statute.
    20. F
  21. "21. In Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff�s argument that FRCP 35 was invalid on the grounds that the rule abridged an important procedural right."
    21. T
  22. 22. A federal service of process provision that provides standard service alternatives not available under state law would likely be valid under the terms of the REA.
    22. T
  23. 23. An FRCP must always be construed narrowly to avoid conflicts with state law.
    23. F
  24. 24. A federal rule must be interpreted identically in federal question and diversity cases.
    24. F
  25. 25. In Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc�s v. Allstate Ins. Co. the majority and dissent disagreed as to whether FRCP 23 was sufficiently broad to control the issue presented to the Court.
    25. T
  26. "26. In Shady Grove, Justice Scalia endorsed an approach to the REA that would permit both facial and as-applied challenges to an FRCP."
    26. F
  27. "27. In Shady Grove, Justice Stevens interpreted the REA as permitting as-applied challenges to an FRCP but as also establishing that the bar for such challenges was a high one."
    27. T
  28. "28. Federal courts have an inherent authority derived from Article III to create free-standing procedural common law where no constitutional, statutory, or formal federal rule exists."
    28. T
  29. 29. The Erie doctrine does not apply in equitable proceedings.
    29. F
  30. 30. The critical problem in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York was that the federal judge made law of laches operated substantively by permitting a plaintiff to pursue a state-created right in federal court that no longer was enforceable as a matter of state law.
    30. T
  31. 31. The Guaranty Trust Court�s resolution of the issue before it can be properly characterized as premised on the Rules of Decision Act.
    31. T
  32. "32. The conflict between federal and state law at issue in Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. was outcome-determinative in the same sense as was the conflict at issue in Guaranty Trust."
    32. F
  33. 33. The discussion in Hanna v. Plumer regarding the Erie doctrine was dicta and may safely be ignored.
    33. F
  34. 34. A federal common law principle of procedure can be validly applied in a diversity case in the face of conflicting state law so long as the application of the federal principle has no tangible effect on the outcome.
    34. F
  35. "35. If the choice of a federal forum in a diversity case would be outcome determinative at the forum shopping stage due to the application of procedural federal common law, application of that federal procedural principle would violate the Reserved Powers Doctrine."
    35. T
  36. 36. The purpose of the refined outcome determinative test is to determine whether an ostensibly procedural principle of federal common law operates or functions substantively.
    36. T
  37. "37. In Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment barred a federal appellate court from reviewing any decision by USDC pertaining to the excessiveness of damages awarded by a jury. "
    37. F
  38. 38. The preclusive effect of a federal court judgment is to be determined as a matter of federal law.
    38. T
  39. "39. The preclusive effect of a federal court judgment in a diversity case is, as a matter of federal law, to be determined by reference to the law of the state in which the federal court sits unless application of state law is incompatible with federal interests."
    39. T
  40. 40. Federal court can sometimes avoid a potential conflict with state law by incorporating that state law into the federal law principle to be applied.
    40. T
Card Set
erie diagnostic.txt
erie diagnostic