{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

W12 - Brief Notes (11-16, Second Half)

W12 - Brief Notes (11-16, Second Half) - The poetic...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The poetic concurring opinion of Harlan in Hanna He would have overruled Ragan because he focussed on the traditional view that a statute of limitations is by definition procedural He is focussed on the idea of "Federal Creep" Walker v. Armco This case is on all fours with Ragan It construes Rule 3 very narrowly in order to avoid collision between the state and federal rules In the absence of a Federal rule on point, we apply state law This approach raises the spectre of Byrd Hanna has not overruled Walker (which follows Ragan) Why? The statutes of limitations is substantive on these facts for the purposes of 2072(b) Hanna was applied in Burlington, which is roundly criticized for reading the rules too broadly From Burlington, we have that "Procedure Swallows Everything" As long as there is some procedural aspect, we let the rule pass constitutional muster AL doesn't enforce forum selection clauses Does this create a direct collision? (federal rules allow forum selection) Does forum selection meet the "arguably procedural" standard?
Background image of page 1

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

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}