The Repressible Myth of Shady Grove
Kevin M. Clermont
Cornell Law School
August 20, 2010
This Article untangles the effects of the Supreme Court’s latest word on the Erie doctrine. First, Shady Grove lightly confirms the limited role of constitutional constraints. Second, it sheds only a little light on judicial choice-of-law methodology. Third, by contrast, it does considerably clarify the conflict between Federal Rules and state law: if a Rule regulates procedure, then it is valid and applicable without exception in all federal cases, to the extent of its coverage; in determining the Rule’s coverage, federal courts should read it, when alternative readings are defensible, to minimize its intrusion on substantive rights (that is, they should construe a Rule in a fashion that includes considering the impact on the generalized congressional and state interests in regulating substance, but they should not adopt a narrowed construction to avoid conflict with the state’s interests peculiarly in play in the particular situation presented by the case at bar). In the end, Shady Grove has not fundamentally altered Erie, but it mercifully makes it more comprehensible.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 51
Keywords: Erie, choice of law, Shady Grove
JEL Classification: K41working papers series
Date posted: July 2, 2010 ; Last revised: February 9, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.641 seconds