EERIE

DOCTRINE

The Eerie Doctrinethe law of the state, whether case law or statute, will be applied in the federal
courts sitting in the state unless the case arises under federal law. Erie v. Tompkins. Guiding principle
is that all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of
jurisdiction 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 litigation, as it would be if tried in the state court.
In General

Comes Up Under: Supplemental Jurisdiction and Diversity Jurisdiction.

Reasons for Rule
a. Comitystates must respect the federal government and the federal government must respect the
states.
b. Discourage forum shopping.
c.Avoid inequitable administration of the lawcases should be decided the same whether they are
heard in federal court or state court.
If the outcome of the case would be different by applying the state rule as opposed to the federal rule,
the federal court must apply the state rule.
Analysis
1) Is there a difference in what the federal court would do in deciding the case and what the state court
would normally do?
a. If no, there is not an Erie problem. A state law, rule or practice that is different than the
federal law or practice alerts you to an Erie problem.
b. If yes, go to next question.
2) Is the difference in the matter of substantive law?
a. Substantive lawelements of the claim or defense; how the state legislature or courts
have defined a partys rights or responsibilities.
b. If a federal law or statute creates the plaintiffs right to relief, there is not an Erie problemfederal
question.
c. If yes, a matter of substantive law, the federal court must do what the state court would
do. The federal courts cannot fashion their own federal common law in the matter unless
there is a federal question.
O

1. Diversitystate law
2. Federal Questionfederal law
3. Federal common law is okay when

1
 a. Preemptionarea where Congress has extinguished the states
right/opportunity to make law in the area, e.g., labor law.
b. To help define and apply a federal statute that doesnt spell everything out, e.g.,
discrimination, antitrust.
d. If not a matter of substantive law, is there a federally enacted rule or statute of procedure that addresses
this matter?
1. If the federal rule of civil procedure was properly enacted and is on point, even if the
outcome would be different, the federal courts are free to apply their own rule. Federal
courts apply their own procedural lawsRules Enabling Act28 U.S.C. 2072
Congress can make rules of procedure for federal courts.
a. On pointcovers the same thing as the state rule.
b. If a statute is on pointdepends on how broadly or narrowly the statute is
defined
i. Narrowlystate law applies.
ii. Broadlyfederal law applies.
c.Exam noteargue what the result would be if the statute was defined
u

narrowly and what it would be defined broadly.

2. If there is no federally enacted rule of civil procedure that addresses the matter and
is on point and the dispute is not clearly a substantive matter, apply the outcome-
determinative test.
a. Apply the state rule if the outcome would be different, if there is a strong state
policy, and if there is not a strong countervailing federal interest.
b. The outcome-determinative test does not apply if
i. The dispute is a substantive matter, OR
ii. There is a federally enacted rule of civil procedure on point.
Limitations
Statute of

while not purely substantive, there is no federal statute on point, so the state SOL applies
Does it significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a state that
would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a state court(York pg. 277).
Immaterial as to whether it is substantive or procedural.
1) Is the federal practice codified into a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a federal statute on procedure
28 U.S.C. .
2) If so, is the federal rule directly on point.
3) If federal rule/statute of procedure is on point, apply it Federal court applies it
4) If federal rule/state of procedure is not on point, state practice applied if it is one that affects
outcome, is based on state policy, or bound up with definition of states rights and responsibilities.
When a situation is covered by one of the federal rules, the question facing the court is a far cry from
Hanna Case

the typical, relatively unguided eerie choice. The court has been instructed to apply the federal rule,
and can refuse to do so only if the advisory committee, this court, and congress erred in their prima
facie judgment that the rule in question transgressed neither the terms of the enabling act nor
constitutional restrictions.

Is the federal rule/statute on point

Narrow interpretation of federal rulesee Walker v. Armco Steel. (federal rule doesnt talk
about tolling in the service of process,so must look to state law)
Broad interpretation of federal rulesee Stewart v. Ricoh, Hanna v. Plumer. (federal rule says
service of process,so it is on point.
Conflict of
state law

If there is a conflict of state lawwhich substantive law governs? Wherever there is the most connection.

2
 If the federal court decides to apply state law and the state has not yet decided the issue, e.g., wrongful
life/birth,
Novel State Issue

1) Certification Proceduresome states allow a federal judge to certify a question like this to the
state supreme court. (federal judge asksif there were a claim on wrongful life, would you
recognize it?) Send it to the highest court in that court. How would you decide it? Permits a
federal court to obtain an opinion about applicable state law from the states highest court.
2) Guessthe federal court is supposed to predict what the state court would do by looking at how
other states surrounding the state in question have decided, law review articles, dissents, etc
3) NCthese courts dont want to make case law based on hypothetical fact patterns. They dont
guess or make a certification procedures.
Nature of Federal Court
Issue Should
1) Matter of clearly substantive law Apply state law (Eerie)
(bound up with the rights and
obligations created by the state law).
Which Test to Apply

2) Matters of form and Apply state law (Yorkoutcome determinative test)

mode(procedure) where applying
separate rule would likely affect the
outcome.
3) Matters of form and Apply federal law (Byrd)
mode(procedure) where applying
separate rule would likely affect the
outcome, but there are important
federal countervailing
considerations.
4) Matters of form and Apply Federal Law (Hanna)
mode(procedure) where applying
separate rule is unlikely to affect
outcome.