Erie doctrine

E354850

The Erie doctrine is a fundamental U.S. legal principle requiring federal courts in diversity jurisdiction cases to apply state substantive law instead of creating or using federal general common law.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Erie doctrine canonical 5

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States federal courts doctrine
legal doctrine
addresses vertical choice of law
affects litigation strategy in federal diversity cases
aimsToPrevent different outcomes in state and federal court based solely on forum
announcedInYear 1938
appliesInJurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
appliesTo diversity jurisdiction cases
federal question cases with supplemental state-law claims
state-created rights and obligations
appliesWhen federal court sits in diversity
basedOnCase Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
clarifiedByCase Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
Hanna v. Plumer
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
surface form: Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.
considered fundamental principle of U.S. civil procedure
coreConcept no federal general common law in diversity cases
courtAnnouncingDoctrine Supreme Court of the United States
distinguishesBetween substantive law and procedural law
doesNotRequireApplicationOf state procedural rules when valid federal rule on point exists
fieldOfLaw civil procedure
federal courts law
governs choice between state and federal law in federal courts
hasComponentTest balancing of state and federal interests
outcome-determinative test
twin aims of Erie
holdsThat federal courts may apply federal procedural law if valid under the Rules Enabling Act
federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases
influencedBy constitutional considerations
federalism principles
influences interpretation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
interpretsStatute Rules Enabling Act
legalSystem United States law
surface form: United States legal system
limits federal general common law
overruledPrecedent Swift v. Tyson
reasoningIncludes concern about forum shopping
concern about inequitable administration of the laws
rejects federal general common law
relatedConcept Klaxon rule
relatedTo Rules of Decision Act
requiresApplicationOf state choice-of-law rules in diversity cases
state substantive law
taughtIn U.S. law schools
twinAims avoiding inequitable administration of the laws
discouraging forum shopping

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.