« Micro-Symposium on Orin Kerr's 'A Theory of Law' | Main | Go Ask Alice »

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Erieblogging: Day Nineteen

Today's question is about the “twin aims of the Erie rule” in Hanna v. Plumer – that is, the goal of uniformity with a forum state court, in order to avoid “forum shopping” and the “inequitable administration of the laws.” In fact, it's the same question as yesterday: Why did Warren call them the twin aims of the Erie rule? But today's question is based on a different puzzle. 

Under the twin aims, a federal court sitting in diversity should use the forum state's statute of limitations, if that is what a forum state court would use.  But if the twin aims are about Erie, shouldn't the question be whether the forum state supreme court wants its statute of limitations to be used by federal courts within its borders? The twin aims seem to be about uniformity with a forum state court whatever the forum state supreme court says about the matter. And that doesn't sound like Erie to me. 

(Parallel posted on Michael Green's Civ Pro blog.)

Posted by Michael Steven Green on January 19, 2013 at 01:22 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017d402751f6970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Erieblogging: Day Nineteen:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

These seem to be generating a lot of good discussion.

Posted by: Tom Tuttle | Jan 19, 2013 5:30:12 PM

I said I was going to post a question about Erie each day this month. So that's what I'm going to do, dammit, comments or no comments...

Posted by: Michael Steven Green | Jan 20, 2013 10:21:05 AM

Post a comment