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.)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Erieblogging: Day Nineteen:
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
The comments to this entry are closed.