Shedding light on shady grove: Further reflections on the erie doctrine from a conflicts perspective

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 939-985

  Bauer, Joseph P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053410847     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. See generally Peter Westen & Jeffrey S. Lehman, Is There Life for Erie After the Death of Diversity?, 78 MICH. L. REV. 311 (1980)
2. Joseph P. Bauer, The Erie Doctrine Revisited: How a Conflicts Perspective Can Aid the Analysis, 74 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1235 (1999).
3. see Kermit Roosevelt III, Choice of Law in Federal Courts: From Erie and Klaxon to CAFA and Shady Grove, 106 Nw. U.L. REV. (forthcoming 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1665092.
4. (citing Roger J. Traynor, Is This Conflict Really Necessary?, 37 TEX. L. REV. 657, 658 (1959));
5. (citing Brainerd Currie, Married Women's Contracts: A Study in Conflict-of-Laws Method, 25 U. CHI. L. REV. 227, 231 (1958)).
6. see Herma Hill Kay, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Professor of Law, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 2, 11-16 (2004)
7. see, e.g., Ruth B. Ginsburg, Judgments in Search of Full Faith and Credit: The Last-in-Time Rule for Conflicting Judgments, 82 HARV. L. REV. 798 (1969).
8. (quoting RICHARD H. FALLON, JR. ET AL., HART AND WECHS-LER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 729 (4th ed. 1996)).
9. See generally Jay Tidmarsh, Procedure, Substance, and Erie, 64 VAND. L. REV. 877 (2011).
10. See generally David L. Franklin, Justice Ginsburg's Common-Law Federalism, 43 NEW ENG. L. REV. 751, 754 (2009)
11. ("The plurality's 'test' is no test at all - in a sense, it is little more than the statement that a matter is procedural if, by revelation, it is procedural.'" (quoting 19 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4509 (2d ed. 1996))).
12. See Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey, 58 AM. J. COMP. L. 227, 231-32 (2010)
13. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 6(2) (1971).
14. See Brainerd Currie, Comments on Babcock v. Jackson, 63 COLUM. L. REV. 1233, 1242 (1963)
15. See also Catherine T. Struve, Institutional Practice, Procedural Uniformity, and As-Applied Challenges Under the Rules Enabling Act, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1181, 1216 & n.141 (2011)
16. Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175, 1179 (1989).
17. See, e.g., Stephen Breyer, On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes, 65 S. CAL. L. REV. 845, 847 (1992)
18. John F. Manning, Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 673, 673 (1997). (Pubitemid 127436838)
19. See Kevin M. Clermont, The Repressible Myth of Shady Grove, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 987, 1029-31 (2011).