View source for Erie doctrine

{{Short description|Doctrine in US federal civil procedure}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Erie'' doctrine}}
{{More citations needed|date=November 2012}}
{{US fed civ pro}}
The '''''Erie'' doctrine''' is a fundamental [[law|legal]] [[doctrine]] of [[civil procedure in the United States]] which mandates that a [[United States federal court|federal court]] called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a [[federal question jurisdiction|federal question]] (most commonly when sitting in [[diversity jurisdiction]], but also when applying [[supplemental jurisdiction]] to claims factually related to a federal question or in an [[adversary proceeding in bankruptcy (United States)|adversary proceeding in bankruptcy]]) must apply [[State law (United States)|state]] [[substantive law]].

The doctrine follows from the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] [[landmark decision]] in ''[[Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins]]'' (1938). The case overturned ''[[Swift v. Tyson]]'', which allowed [[United States federal judge|federal judges]] sitting in a state to ignore the [[common law]] local decisions of [[State court (United States)|state courts]] in the same state in [[Diversity jurisdiction|diversity actions]].

==Scope==
There are two main objectives of the ''Erie'' decision: (1) to discourage [[forum shopping]] among litigants, and (2) to avoid inequitable administration of the laws.  Broadly speaking, the second objective is sometimes referred to as "vertical uniformity" and is rooted in the idea that in a given state, the outcome of the litigation should not be grossly different just because a litigant filed a claim in a state court rather than a federal court or vice versa.

The ''Erie'' doctrine today applies regardless of how the federal court may hear a state claim.  Whether the federal court encounters a state law issue in diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction, or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state [[common law]] when deciding state law issues.<ref>See, generally, ''[[United Mine Workers v. Gibbs]]'', 383 U.S. 715 (1966) and ''[[Butner v. United States]]'', 440 U.S. 48 (1979).</ref>

In effect, when the U.S. Constitution does not control and Congress has not legislated (or cannot legislate) on a topic, then the laws of the states necessarily govern and state judge-made rules are equally binding on the federal courts as state statutes.

The federal court must determine if either 1) state law is clear as to the case in controversy, or 2) if not, then has the state's highest court ruled specifically on a similar case.  If so, the state law or court ruling must be followed.  But if not, then the federal court must determine ''how'' the state's highest court would potentially rule on a matter: for example, it may look to state appellate courts to see how they ruled, and if the state chose not to hear further appeals, the federal court could determine that the high court agreed with the appellate courts. The determination is called an "'''Erie'' guess", though the term "guess" is a misnomer as the federal court must make a reasoned determination in its ruling.

Alternatively though, the court may elect to [[Certified question|certify the question]] to the state's highest court for a ruling on state law in the matter.  Some states, however, do not allow Federal District Courts to certify questions, only the Supreme Court or Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.

==Origin==
The ''Erie'' case involved a fundamental question of [[federalism]] and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States.  In 1789, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] passed a law still in effect today called the [[Rules of Decision Act]] ({{usc|28|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 jurisdiction|diversity]] (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of the applicable state in resolving a case before it.

===''Swift v. Tyson''===
The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court's]] decision in ''[[Swift v. Tyson]]'' 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.

===Aftermath of ''Swift''===
The decision in ''[[Swift v. Tyson|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.

==''Erie''==
The decision in ''Erie'' involved a [[railroad]] accident.  The [[plaintiff]], Tompkins, was walking alongside 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, however, Tompkins was considered a [[trespass]]er. He could not recover damages for an ordinary negligence claim in the state court of Pennsylvania, because under the law of that state, a claimant had to show "wanton" negligence on part of the Defendant to recover.

Thus, Tompkins brought his case in federal court to avoid the unfavorable state law. He subsequently won. However, on appeal the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] held, in an opinion drafted by Justice Brandeis, that such decisions and inconsistent rulings based on a general federal common law were [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]], and that decisions by a state supreme court were "laws" that federal courts were bound to follow under the Rule of Decision Act.  Brandeis noted that the Court felt that ''Swift'' allowed federal courts to make unconstitutional modifications of the substantive law of a state. He noted that it violated the right to equal protection under the law, although he did not mean it in the sense of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]. The Court overturned ''Swift'' on its own initiative, since the parties in ''Erie'' did not ask the Court to do so.

==Development==
Several later [[Legal case|cases]] have added to the vague ''[[Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins|Erie]]'' decision (Brandeis cited no provision of the Constitution that ''[[Swift v. Tyson|Swift]]'' violated, although theoretically it might have violated the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|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 v. Plumer|Hanna]]'' & [[Rules Enabling Act]] approach, per {{usc|28|2072}} when there is a [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure|Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]] and [[statute]] that conflicts with a [[State law (United States)|state law]]; and (2) the ''Byrd''-''Erie'' approach when there is not a conflict between a state and federal practice.

===''Byrd''-''Erie''===
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. In ''[[Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.|Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc.]]'', the Court decided that the federal policy allocating responsibilities between judge and jury, as embodied in the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution, outweighed the state rule requiring a judge to decide whether an employer was immune from suit. The main goal of the ''Erie'' decision was to prevent "[[forum-shopping]]," a practice where [[plaintiffs]] choose a [[venue (law)|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.

Justice Frankfurter in ''[[Guaranty Trust Co. v. York]]'',<ref>''Guaranty Trust Co. v. York'' {{ussc|326|99|1945}}</ref> summarizes the main point of Erie differently:

<blockquote>In essence, the intent of that decision was to ensure 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....</blockquote>

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.

===''Hanna''===
Under the approach in ''[[Hanna v. Plumer]]'', the [[United States district court|federal court]] of a [[U.S. state|state]] hearing a case based on [[diversity jurisdiction]] should apply [[State law (United States)|state law]] in the event of conflict between state and federal law - or in the absence of relevant federal positive law - if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has defined substantive rights as, "rights conferred by the law to be protected and enforced by the adjective law of judicial procedure."  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, or 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.

=== ''Gasperini'' ===
A more recent Supreme Court case that addressed the ''Erie'' problem is ''[[Gasperini v. Center for Humanities]]'', {{ussc|518|415|1996}}.  ''Gasperini'' is a post-''Hanna'' decision addressing a conflict between state and federal law for review of jury verdicts. The plaintiff, a well-known artist and photographer from New York, sued a New York museum in federal court in New York, for damages arising from the loss of some photographs and slides he had loaned the museum. A jury found in his favor and awarded damages. The defendant appealed, and the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] reduced the damages award on appeal. Gasperini appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The New York state provision, a [[Tort reform in the United States|"tort reform"]] measure, allowed reviewing appellate courts to overturn a jury verdict if it "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation."  Pursuant to this law, the Second Circuit applied the state's appellate standard of review. However, the Supreme Court stated that federal courts, bound by the reexamination clause of the [[Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]], could overturn a jury's finding of fact only if it "shocked the conscience."

The Supreme Court could have resolved the case by reading the [[Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]] broadly, and treating it as controlling in federal court. However, instead, the Court opted for what can be described as a compromise,{{By whom|date=October 2020}} holding that the federal court should apply the state's lower standard of review, but in a way that would not run afoul of the Seventh Amendment: instead of the federal appeals court reviewing the jury finding, the trial judge would assume the role.

''Gasperini'', and another recent ''Erie''-area case, ''[[Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.]]'', have shown ''Erie'' has gone in a newer and even more complicated direction than the previous controlling cases, and that instead of selecting either federal or state law for a case, the federal court may be required to somehow blend federal and state law, depending on the issue. This is quite frustrating for those who wish to have a black-letter rule that will point them to the answer. However, the possibility of blending in ''Erie'' does not open up an infinitude of possibilities. In both ''Gasperini'' and ''Semtek'', the common thread is that the blending is done in a way that is calculated to advance the aims of ''Erie'' (and ''York''): non-discrimination between litigants, and discouragement of [[forum shopping]].<ref>Allan Ides & Christopher May, Civil Procedure, 3d Edition.</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:United States civil procedure]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]
[[Category:United States Erie Doctrine]]
[[Category:1938_in_United_States_case_law]]