« Mandatory public education | Main | Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction and the Collateral Order Doctrine »

Monday, January 07, 2013

Erieblogging: Day Seven

Yet another un- or underexplored question about Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins  (parallel posted on my own CivPro Blog).
 
Today's question counts only as underexplored, not unexplored (due to Abbe Gluck’s marvelous article): A federal court is interpreting a state statute. Is it obligated by Erie to do so using the state’s method of statutory interpretation? Shouldn’t the answer be based on whether the state supreme court would want the federal court to do so? But, short of certification, how can we know whether that’s true

Bonus question: A sister state court is interpreting a state’s statute. Is it obligated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to do so using the state’s method of statutory interpretation?

Double bonus question: A state court is interpreting a federal statute. Is it constitutionally obligated (by the Supremacy Clause?) to do so using federal methods of statutory interpretation?

Posted by Michael Steven Green on January 7, 2013 at 06:35 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017ee70e9886970d

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

Comments

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

Post a comment