United States Federal civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing  · Ripeness  · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
* Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
* Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine  · Abstention
Sovereign immunity  · Abrogation
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Adequate and independent state ground
edit this template

The Erie Doctrine provides that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction over a state law claim must apply state substantive common law in resolving the dispute. The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the American legal system that stems from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' watershed opinion in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938). That decision overturned a previous decision of the court, Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state, in cases based on diversity jurisdiction. Image File history File links Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal      The government of the United States of America, established by the U.S. Constitution, is a... Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action, as opposed to a criminal action). ... Justiciability is a term used in civil procedure to describe whether a dispute is capable of being settled by a court of law. ... An advisory opinion, in civil procedure, is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. ... In law, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. ... In law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; for example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision. ... This article is about the law term moot. ... In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court, declining to rule in a case because: 1) the U.S. Constitution has committed decision-making on this subject to another branch of the federal government; 2) there... In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning law and dicere meaning to speak) is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area... Subject matter jurisdiction is a legal term used in civil procedure to indicate that a case must be entered in the proper court of law based on the nature of the claim. ... Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of... Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are diverse, meaning that they come from different states. ... Supplemental jurisdiction in the United States is the jurisdiction excercised by federal courts over a case regarding state law in order to resolve all the issues between the parties without having to litigate the same facts more than once. ... In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the power of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the Federal district court of the original courts district. ... Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case. ... Personal jurisdiction, jurisdiction of (or over) the person, or jurisdiction in personam is the power of a court to require a party (usually the defendant) or a witness to come before the court. ... Jurisdiction in rem (Latin, power about or against the thing) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a status against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or... Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert in personam jurisdiction (i. ... At the core, political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group or body of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. ... An abstention doctrine is any one of several doctrines that a United States federal court might (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of the state courts. ... Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. ... The abrogation doctrine is a doctrine in United States constitutional law which permits the U.S. Congress to allow lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual U.S. states, so long as this is usually done pursuant to a constitutional limitation on the power of the states. ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. ... The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. ... Equality and the balancing of interests under law is symbolised by a blindfold and weighing scales For other senses of this word, see Law (disambiguation). ... Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. ... Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action, as opposed to a criminal action). ... The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government. ... Louis Dembitz Brandeis (November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941) was an American litigator, Supreme Court Justice, advocate of privacy, and developer of the Brandeis Brief. ... A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue. ... Holding No general federal common law. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Year 1938 (MCMXXXVIII) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will take you to calendar). ... Holding Federal courts were to create and apply a federal common law in diversity cases. ... The United States federal courts are the system of courts organized under the Constitution and laws of the federal government of the United States. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal      A state of the United States is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the... A trial at the Old Bailey in London as drawn by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin for Ackermanns Microcosm of London (1808-11). ... Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are diverse, meaning that they come from different states. ...

Brandeis' opinion in Erie was his most influential opinion ever and is one of the most often cited cases in federal judicial opinions.

Scope of Erie

The Erie Doctrine today applies regardless of how the federal court may hear a state claim. Whether the federal court decides a state law issue vis-a-vis supplemental jurisdiction or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state common law when deciding state law issues. See, generally, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) and Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979).

Origin of the Erie doctrine

The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States. Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state. Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of Texas in resolving a case before it. Holding No general federal common law. ... At the core, political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group or body of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. ... Type Bicameralism Houses Senate House of Representatives United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D, since January 4, 2007 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D, since January 4, 2007 Members 535 plus 4 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner Political groups (as of November 7, 2006 elections) Democratic Party Republican... The Rules of Decision Act requires that federal courts apply state law in their decisions, except when in conflict with federal law. ... Official language(s) English (de facto) See also languages of Texas Capital Austin Largest city Houston Area  Ranked 2nd  - Total 268,581 sq mi (695,622 km²)  - Width 773 miles (1,244 km)  - Length 790 miles (1,270 km)  - % water 2. ...

Swift v. Tyson

The Supreme Court's decision in Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842), had defined the laws of the state as meaning only laws passed by legislatures of that state (though Justice Joseph Story writing for the court suggested that federal courts should pay special attention to how the "local tribunals" of a state would resolve a dispute). Thus, on issues of "general common law," a federal court was free to ignore decisions by a state's highest court. Holding Federal courts were to create and apply a federal common law in diversity cases. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... 1842 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ... American jurist Joseph Story Joseph Story (September 18, 1779 - September 10, 1845), American jurist, was born at Marblehead, Massachusetts. ...

Aftermath of Swift

The decision in Swift resulted in inconsistent judicial rulings in the same state on the same legal issue depending on whether a plaintiff brought a case in state or federal court. In one case, for example, Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co. 276 U.S. 518 (1928), the Brown and Yellow Cab Company, a Kentucky corporation, sought to create a business association with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, where Brown and Yellow would have a monopoly on soliciting passengers of the railroad, effectively eliminating the competition, the Black and White Cab Co. Such an agreement was illegal under Kentucky common law, as interpreted by Kentucky's highest court. Brown and Yellow dissolved itself, reincorporated in Tennessee, and executed the agreement there, where such an agreement was legal, bringing suit against Black and White in a Kentucky federal court to prevent them from soliciting passengers. The federal court upheld the agreement, citing Swift, and arguing that under general federal common law, the agreement was valid. If Brown and Yellow had brought suit in a Kentucky state court, the agreement would not have been upheld. Holding Federal courts were to create and apply a federal common law in diversity cases. ... Holding In suit in federal court to restrain interference with railroads contract granting exclusive privileges to plaintiff taxicab company in soliciting partronage at depot, federal courts are not bound by Kentucky decisions that such contracts are invalid, since, in determining questions of general law, federal courts are free to... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Year 1928 (MCMXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Sunday (link will display full calendar). ... Official language(s) English[1] Capital Frankfort Largest city Louisville Area  Ranked 37th  - Total 40,444 sq mi (104,749 km²)  - Width 140 miles (225 km)  - Length 379 miles (610 km)  - % water 1. ... Corporate redirects here. ... Chartered by the state of Kentucky in 1850, the L&N, as it was generally known, grew into one of the great success stories of American business. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Official language(s) English Capital Nashville Largest city Memphis Largest metro area Nashville Area  Ranked 36th  - Total 42,169 sq mi (109,247 km²)  - Width 120 miles (195 km)  - Length 440 miles (710 km)  - % water 2. ...

The Erie decision

The decision in Erie involved a railroad accident. The plaintiff, Tompkins, was walking along side Erie's railroad tracks in Pennsylvania when a train passed. An open door struck him and knocked him under the train, severing his arm. In most states, Tompkins could sue for negligence of the railroad and recover monetary damages for his loss. In Pennsylvania, Tompkins would have been considered a trespasser, and would not be able to recover for an ordinary negligence claim in their state court (He would have to prove "wanton" negligence). Thus, Tompkins brought his case in federal court to avoid the unfavorable state law. He subsequently won. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Brandeis held that such decisions and inconsistent rulings based on a general federal common law were unconstitutional, and that decisions by a State's Supreme Court were "laws" that federal courts were bound to follow under the Rule of Decision Act. Brandeis and the court felt that Swift allowed federal courts to make unconstitutional modifications of the substantive law of a state, violating the right to equal protection under the law (but Brandeis did not mean in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment). Interestingly, neither of the parties in Erie asked the Supreme Court to reverse Swift, so the Court did so on its own initiative. Holding No general federal common law. ... This is the top-level page of WikiProject trains Rail tracks Rail transport refers to the land transport of passengers and goods along railways or railroads. ... A plaintiff, also known as a claimant or complainer, is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. ... Official language(s) English, Pennsylvania Dutch Capital Harrisburg Largest city Philadelphia Area  Ranked 33rd  - Total 46,055 sq mi (119,283 km²)  - Width 280 miles (455 km)  - Length 160 miles (255 km)  - % water 2. ... In tort law, the right to sue and recover damages from another on the basis of negligence, as opposed to numerous other tort theories discussed elsewhere, is based upon proving that the defendant failed to use ordinary care, that is,that degree of care for the protection of the person... A sign warning against trespassing // In law, trespass can be: the criminal act of going into somebody elses land or property without permission of the owner or lessee; it is also a civil law tort that may be a valid cause of action to seek judicial relief and possibly... Constitutionality is the status of a law, procedure, or act being in accordance with the laws or guidelines contained in a constitution. ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ...

Development of the doctrine

Several later cases have added to the vague Erie decision (Brandeis cited no provision of the Constitution that Swift violated, although theoretically it might have violated the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the state). Speaking generally, there are two approaches in determining whether a federal court will apply a state law: (1) the Hanna & Rules Enabling Act approach, per 28 USC 2072 when there is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and statute that conflicts with a state law; and (2) the Byrd-Erie approach when there is as conflict between a state and federal practice. Case can refer to: An instance or example Letter case (the distinction between majuscule and minuscule letters) or sentence case Cases in linguistic morphology; see declension and list of grammatical cases A term of jurisprudence, referring to the evidence against a defendant or suspect Steve Case, head of AOL Time... Holding No general federal common law. ... Holding Federal courts were to create and apply a federal common law in diversity cases. ... The Tenth Amendment may refer to the: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights. ... Holding The adequacy of service of process in federal diversity jurisdiction cases should be measured by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state rules. ... The Rules Enabling Act is a 1934 United States Congressional act that gave the judicial branch the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ... The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) govern civil procedure in the United States district courts, or more simply, court procedures for civil suits. ... The Statute of Grand Duchy of Lithuania A statute is a formal, written law of a country or state, written and enacted by its legislative authority, perhaps to then be ratified by the highest executive in the government, and finally published. ... State law, in the United States, is the law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the state governor. ...

The Hanna approach

Under this approach, established by Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), the federal court of a state hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction should apply state law in the event of conflict between state and federal law if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens. The Supreme Court has defined substantive rights as, "rights conferred by the law to be protected and enforced by the adjective law of judicial procedure." Sibbach v. Wilson 312 U.S. 1 (1941). An example of a substantive right would be a state law on fraud, which may vary widely in composition depending on the jurisdiction. If the state law is merely procedural --i.e., relating merely to the form and mode of judicial operations-- then the federal court does not have to apply the conflicting state law. However, the substance-procedure distinction is a generality as the Court rejected any test based upon "litmus paper criterion." Thus, a choice between state and federal law must be made with reference to the underlying policy of the Erie decision. The Court announced a modification of the "outcome-determinative" test in York, whereby the test must be applied in light of the twin aims of Erie, which are the discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws. Under this rule, state procedural law would not supplant federal procedural law if the differences in the outcome are nonsubstantial or trivial, fail to raise Equal Protection concerns, and are unlikely to influence the choice of forum. Holding The adequacy of service of process in federal diversity jurisdiction cases should be measured by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state rules. ... The term federal court, when used by itself, can refer to: Any court of the national government in a country that has a federal system such as that of the United States (United States federal courts) or Mexico In some countries, a particular court, for example, the Federal Court of... A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. ... Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are diverse, meaning that they come from different states. ... State law, in the United States, is the law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the state governor. ... The supreme court in some countries, provinces, and states, functions as a court of last resort whose rulings cannot be challenged. ... Holding In a diverse juristiction case, important and substantial procedures are considered Procedural not Substantive and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... For the movie, see 1941 (film). ...

The Byrd-Erie approach

This approach suggests that unless there is a major countervailing federal policy that trumps the state practice, if ignoring the state law would lead to forum shopping by plaintiffs and unequal administration of the laws (like in Yellow Cab above), the court should apply the state law. The main goal of the Erie decision was to prevent "forum-shopping," a practice where plaintiffs choose a legal forum simply because of the probability of a more favorable ruling. The main problem with the decision is that sometimes there is simply no state law or practice on which a federal court may defer. Federal judges are left to guess how a state court would rule on a given legal question, and a state court is in no way bound by a federal decision interpreting their own state law. Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some plaintiffs to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment, or by some defendants who seek to have the case moved to a different court. ... The plaintiff, claimant, or complainant is the party initiating a lawsuit, (also known as an action). ... Venue is the location where a case is heard. ...

Justice Frankfurter in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) summarizes the main point of Erie differently... "In essence, the intent of that decision was to insure that, in all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court...." This suggests that Erie's main goal was to achieve equal protection under the law. One way that equal protection is intentionally disregarded would be through "forum shopping," but the reduction of inequality was the main target of the doctrine. Holding Court membership Chief Justice: Harlan Fiske Stone Associate Justices: Owen Josephus Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge Case opinions Majority by: Frankfurter Joined by: Stone, Black, Reed, Jackson Dissent by: Rutledge Joined by: Murphy Guaranty Trust... Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some plaintiffs to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment, or by some defendants who seek to have the case moved to a different court. ...

Gasperini

The most recent Supreme Court case to address the Erie problem is Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996). Gasperini is a post-Hanna decision that deals with how a jury verdict would be reviewed. The state law allowed the court of appeals to overturn the verdict if it "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation." The conflicting federal practice had a more stringent standard. The SCOTUS held that the federal court had to use the state law standard, but it would be the trial court (not the court of appeals) that would apply the standard. This is because the difference in standards would be likely to cause forum shopping. (Source: Emanuel's Civil Procedure Outline). Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name. ... Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some plaintiffs to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment, or by some defendants who seek to have the case moved to a different court. ...