HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED

HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED - HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED B. Efforts...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED B. Efforts to enunciate a workable test—THE PENDULUM SHIFTS! Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1958 (Transitional case) RULE: Even if it bears substantially on the outcome or is outcome determinative, federal interest (even if not mandated) outweighs state practice. Essential character or function of a federal court. Some treated this as only applying to judge/jury questions. Led to much disorder. Not clear what’s being interpreted here—RDA, REA, Erie ?? Very nebulous. Overruled York ? No, but it’s limited it by adding big next step of weighing federal interest. Courts jump just to weighing in this mid-life area of Erie . Statute of limitations cases (so extreme) state law would still hold. Ragan, 1949 : FRCP 4 v. KA law. Yes, outcome determinative, but isn’t there a federal interest in applying FRCP 4? REA—“federal rule cannot enlarge, abridge, or modify a state right.” Looks like FRCP 4 would enlarge the right to sue here. BUT, Supreme Court accepted KA statute. Federal rule doesn’t
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/10/2011 for the course LAW Civ Pro taught by Professor Arkin during the Spring '10 term at Fordham.

Page1 / 2

HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED - HANNA BETTER EXPLAINED B. Efforts...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online