Wrong, Out of Step, and Pernicious: Erie as the Worst Decision of All Time

27 Pages Posted: 7 Apr 2011 Last revised: 30 May 2012

See all articles by Suzanna Sherry

Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt University - Law School

Date Written: 2012


This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the usual suspects.

I begin, in Part I, by setting out the three criteria that I believe must be satisfied for a decision to qualify as the worst of all time. I also explain briefly why each of the usual suspects fails to meet one or more of those criteria. The heart of the essay is Part II, examining in detail how Erie satisfies each of the three criteria. I close with some concluding thoughts on the surprising relationship between Erie’s flaws and those of the other suspects.

Keywords: Erie, Supreme Court, judicial activism, Brandeis, judicial review, choice of law

Suggested Citation

Sherry, Suzanna, Wrong, Out of Step, and Pernicious: Erie as the Worst Decision of All Time (2012). Pepperdine Law Review, 2012 , Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 11-15, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1803458

Suzanna Sherry (Contact Author)

Vanderbilt University - Law School ( email )

131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States
615-322-0993 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics