« 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 S. Green on January 7, 2013 at 06:35 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017ee70e9886970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Erieblogging: Day Seven:
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.