Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1458330
 
 

Footnotes (255)



 


 



Against Certification


Justin R. Long


University of Connecticut School of Law

August 10, 2009

George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:     
Certification is the process whereby federal courts, confronted by an open question of state law in federal litigation, ask the relevant state high court to decide the state law question. If the state high court chooses to answer, its statement of state law stands as the definitive declaration of the law on the disputed point. The case then returns to the certifying federal court, which resolves any remaining issues, including federal questions, and then issues a mandate. Although a wide range of academic commentators and jurists support certification as an example of respect for state autonomy, this Article shows that in both practice and theory certification does not reflect real comity. Rather, certification is an example of 'dual federalism,' the view that state and federal law ought to be isolated into separate spheres of jurisprudence. For federal courts to show genuine respect for state law, they should stop treating it as foreign and decide open state law questions without certification.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 51

Keywords: certification, federalism, comity, Erie, passive virtues

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 22, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Long, Justin R., Against Certification (August 10, 2009). George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1458330

Contact Information

Justin R. Long (Contact Author)
University of Connecticut School of Law ( email )
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 406
Downloads: 75
Download Rank: 186,893
Footnotes:  255

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.250 seconds