Erie Doctrine: The law a federal court applies: Federal question jurisdiction is usually federal law.

Supreme Court said Swift, was unconstitutional. New cases: Gasperini and Shady Grove

Erie Tompkins:

Use substantive law of forum state Substantive lawsTorts Contracts Property etc. (the duty between people) Procedure is the procedure of things.

Guarantee Trust Federal court uses Latches in equity based cases, and not a NY statute of limitations (you can argue SOL, being procedural, or substantive because it measures the life span of the cause of action. Federal court in a diversity case should really use the state right. Inequitable administrative of law- and forum shopping as otherwise you will probably try to go to a federal court, to get a different ruling/ York Outcome Determinative- everything can be such as paper color too. ReagonFiling is delivery to defendant, instead of by filing comencment.

Byrd Injured in work, diversity in California, question is whether has to go to workers comp, was he an emplouer covered by workers comp, it would be decided by judge, but federally by jury Federal consideration of jury right. In the case of byrd Evaluate the importance of a jury trial over judge. There is no policy in state to have a judge to rule over it. Federal policy is under influence and command of 7th amendment of constitution. (so it should go to federal rules)

State policy, federal policy, and likelihood of outcome determinative. Hanna/Plummer federal court can serve with substituted service, but Mass says when suing state it must be to hand of person. You can argue Mass statute to hand, is subsinitve, but they said this is federal rules of civil procedure. They say this is federal Policy issues, and is an important concept. Federal rule in direct collision with state, if it is procedural, and is constitunal the federal rule will be better. Even if there is state policy. Shady Grove: NY class action (statute) no class action for penalty, Federal court allowed. They wanted to bring it to federal court to allow court Scalia: (took hanna) that it is the same subject as federal court, and thus federal court uses there rules, even if state would have policy not to permit it.. So use federal rules, is procedure and does not go against, REA Stevens: (similar to gasperni) if federal rules, go directly against the state policy it should be state law, so there should not be forum shopping or inequitable use of law. Gasperini:??:32????? - an appellate court can review jury award De Novo, and if not they can redo the case Appelate review for a federal court to review that of a jury, is much harder. Ginsburg Federal court must use state way of review, and that a US district court can use state subsinitve law it for a Judgemet as a matter of law, but otherwise they will have to use the limited historic way of laws.

Claxon-

Substanitve law, includes the forum states conflict principals, and thus in a diversity case, they have to ask, if NY would use its own law, or which other state, and the

federal court will have to do the same with picking which court too use.