Our class action federalism: Erie and the rules enabling act after shady grove

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1131-1180

  Steinman, Adam N ^a  

^a SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053411348     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. For a more detailed description of this framework, see, for example, Adam N. Steinman, What Is the Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean for the Contemporary Politics of Judicial Federalism?), 84 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 245, 261-73 (2008).
2. See, e.g., Martin H. Redish, Electronic Discovery and the Litigation Matrix, 51 DUKE LJ. 561, 598 (2001)
3. see Richard A. Nagareda, The Litigation-Arbitration Dichotomy Meets the Class Action, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1069 (2011).
4. See, e.g., Kevin M. Clermont, The Repressible Myth of Shady Grove, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 987, 1012 & n.112 (2011);
5. J. Benjamin King, Note, Clarification and Disruption: The Effect of Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. on the Erie Doctrine, 83 CORNELL L. REV. 161, 189 (1997).
6. But see Stephen B. Burbank & Tobias Barrington Wolff, Redeeming the Missed Opportunities of Shady Grove, 159 U. PA. L. REV. 17, 49 (2010)
7. Suzanna Sherry, Logic Without Experience: The Problem of Federal Appellate Courts, 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 97, 135 n.232 (2006), same.
8. Cf. Joseph P. Bauer, Shedding Light on Shady Grove: Further Reflections on the Erie Doctrine from a Conflicts Perspective, 86 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 939 (2011).
9. Benjamin Kaplan, Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (pt. 1), 81 HARV. L. REV. 356, 393 (1967);
10. Compare, e.g., Paul D. Carrington, "Substance" and "Procedure" in the Rules Enabling Act, 1989 DUKE LJ. 281, 317-19
11. with Stephen B. Burbank, Hold the Corks: A Comment on Paul Carrington's "Substance" and "Procedure" in the Rules Enabling Act, 1989 DUKE LJ. 1012, 1027-29
12. see also, e.g., Stephen B. Burbank, Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Full Faith and Credit and Federal Common IMW: A General Approach, 71 CORNELL L. REV. 733, 764 (1986)
13. See, e.g., John Hart Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 HARV. L. REV. 693, 726-27 (1974).
14. Martin H. Redish, Class Actions and the Democratic Difficulty: Rethinking the Intersection of Private Litigation and Public Goals, 2003 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 71, 129.
15. See, e.g., Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., Quasi-Preemption: Nervous Breakdown in Our Constitutional System, 84 TUL. L. REV. 1143, 1154-55 (2010)
16. Compare Stephen B. Burbank, The Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 1015, 1175-76 (1982)
17. See, e.g., Linda S. Mullenix, Federal Class Actions: A Near-Death Experience in a Shady Grove, 79 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 448, 480 (2011);
18. Ashby Jones, The Shady Grove Case: Is Scalia Getting Soft on Plaintiffs? WALL ST. J.L. BLOG (Apr. 1, 2010, 6:45 PM), http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/Ol/ the-shady-grove-case-is-scalia-getting-soft-on-plaintiffs.
19. See, e.g., DEBORAH R. HENSLER ET AL., CLASS ACTION DILEMMAS 66 (2000);
20. Stephen B. Burbank, The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in Historical Context: A Preliminary View, 156 U. PA. L. REV. 1439, 1522-23 (2008);
21. Neal Miller, An Empirical Study of Forum Choices in Removal Cases Under Diversity and Federal Question Jurisdiction, 41 AM. U. L. REV. 369, 391 n.101 (1992);
22. Alan B. Morrison, Removing Class Actions to Federal Court: A Better Way to Handle the Problem of Overlapping Class Actions, 57 STAN. L. REV. 1521, 1528-29 (2005);
23. Martha Neil, New Route for Class Actions: Proposals Raise Questions About Whether Giving Federal Courts More Power over Cases Will Cure the System's Ills, 89 A.B.A. J. 48, 50 (2003);
24. See EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR., BRANDEIS AND THE PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTION 52-55 (2000);
25. THOMAS D. ROWE, JR., SUZANNA SHERRY & JAY TIDMARSH, CIVIL PROCEDURE 598 (2d ed. 2008).
26. Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., Not Bad for Government Work: Does Anyone Else Think the Supreme Court Is Doing a Halfway Decent fob in Its Erie-Hanna furisprudence?, 73 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 963, 1015 (1998).
27. See, e.g., Suzanna Sherry, Wrong, Out of Step, and Pernicious: Erie as the Worst Decision of All Time, 38 PEPPERDINE L. REV. (forthcoming 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1803458.