Enabling the Federal Rules

dc.contributor.authorBassett, Debra Lynen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-18T17:55:00Z
dc.date.available2013-02-18T17:55:00Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|The Creighton Law Review invited me to "re-write the [plurality], concurring, or dissenting opinion [in] Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., ['] as you think it should have been written." Shady Grove examined whether a federal diversity class action seeking statutory interest could move forward in the federal court, or whether a New York state law prohibiting the recovery of a penalty in class actions (such as the statutory interest sought) prevented the class action pursuant to the Erie doctrine. The basic premise underlying the Erie doctrine, of course, is that federal courts hearing a state law claim follow state substantive law, but have the power, pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, to create federal procedural rules. The federal district court concluded that the New York law precluded the class action, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Second Circuit concluded that the New York provision was substantive and thus the federal court was required to apply the state provision...en_US
dc.description.note2010-2011en_US
dc.description.pages7en_US
dc.description.volume44
dc.identifier.citation44 Creighton L. Rev. 7 (2010-2011)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40695
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.time.yr2010-2011
dc.titleEnabling the Federal Rulesen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
04_44CreightonLRev7(2010-2011).pdf
Size:
1.29 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: