This flowchart outlines the process for determining whether state or federal law applies in federal court. First, it examines if there is a federal rule directly on point. If so, the Hanna test is used to determine if the federal rule conflicts with state law or policy or violates the Rules Enabling Act. If no direct federal rule, the Byrd balancing test is employed weighing the federal interest against whether the state rule is substantive or bound up with state rights and obligations. The outcome determinative test also analyzes if the state rule would change the case outcome. The flowchart provides guidance on applying these different analyses to properly choose between state and federal law.
This flowchart outlines the process for determining whether state or federal law applies in federal court. First, it examines if there is a federal rule directly on point. If so, the Hanna test is used to determine if the federal rule conflicts with state law or policy or violates the Rules Enabling Act. If no direct federal rule, the Byrd balancing test is employed weighing the federal interest against whether the state rule is substantive or bound up with state rights and obligations. The outcome determinative test also analyzes if the state rule would change the case outcome. The flowchart provides guidance on applying these different analyses to properly choose between state and federal law.
This flowchart outlines the process for determining whether state or federal law applies in federal court. First, it examines if there is a federal rule directly on point. If so, the Hanna test is used to determine if the federal rule conflicts with state law or policy or violates the Rules Enabling Act. If no direct federal rule, the Byrd balancing test is employed weighing the federal interest against whether the state rule is substantive or bound up with state rights and obligations. The outcome determinative test also analyzes if the state rule would change the case outcome. The flowchart provides guidance on applying these different analyses to properly choose between state and federal law.
28 U.S.C. 1652 Fed Rule on Point? Look to 2 aims of Erie 1. Avoid Forum Shop 2. Avoid unfair admin of state/fed laws. Hanna Holding (Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460) 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 (SEE REA BELOW) 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) YES NO Apply State Law BALANCE
NO Erie Doctrine Flowchart: The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws YES YES 2. Federal Countervailing Interests (for fed law)
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). 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 Apply Federal Law Apply State 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. Fed Procedure > State Substantive so long as: It does not Modify, Enlarge, or abridge any State Substantive right. State Substantive Law (bound up in Rights and Obligations?) USE FEDERAL LAW/ PROCEDURE If Unsure YES NO