So right now I'm currently doing my 1L first semester in law school and am working on my civil procedure briefs and reading. Tomorrow we are covering the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case. For those who don't know (most of you I would assume) this case overturned the long standing decision of Swift v. Tyson in which the Supreme Court ruled that when a federal court hears a case involving diversity [1] and must consider state matters, it need only adhere to the statutory laws of the state made by the legislature and not those laws made/interpreted through state court decisions. Essentially it provided the Federal courts with a blank slate for almost a century to create their own federal general common law.
The intention of that decision was to make a body of federal common law that the state's could look to and follow and provide the United States with a model for unified law. Of course this did not work. The state's laws diverged greatly and continued to diverge. In addition plaintiff's could pick and chose where to bring their cases in order to achieve desired results depending on whether the laws of a state or the laws of the federal common law were more favorable. A famous example of this is when a taxi company in Kentucky desired to sue another Kentucky taxi company but the Kentucky laws were not favorable to its action, so it reincorporated in Tennessee to create diversity and then achieved the results of its suit via federal court. Forum shopping and abuse of the federal court system became commonplace causing the courts to reverse their stance from Swift v. Tyson in the Erie RR v. Tompkins case in which they said that when considering state law one must include the entire body of state law, both statutory and case law.
My question to you is, in this AH the Supreme Court will uphold the Swift v. Tyson doctrine and to this day we have a very unique body of federal general common law still in place. What famous cases might this have impacted and how could this have changed the US both legally and socially over the years?
[1]: Diversity: one of the ways you can get a case in federal court is through diversity. This is where a citizen of Texas can sue a citizen of New York and its good because there is diversity. The diversity requirement is what keeps Texans from suing Texans in federal court unless there is a specific Constitutional question or Federal act that must be interpreted.
The intention of that decision was to make a body of federal common law that the state's could look to and follow and provide the United States with a model for unified law. Of course this did not work. The state's laws diverged greatly and continued to diverge. In addition plaintiff's could pick and chose where to bring their cases in order to achieve desired results depending on whether the laws of a state or the laws of the federal common law were more favorable. A famous example of this is when a taxi company in Kentucky desired to sue another Kentucky taxi company but the Kentucky laws were not favorable to its action, so it reincorporated in Tennessee to create diversity and then achieved the results of its suit via federal court. Forum shopping and abuse of the federal court system became commonplace causing the courts to reverse their stance from Swift v. Tyson in the Erie RR v. Tompkins case in which they said that when considering state law one must include the entire body of state law, both statutory and case law.
My question to you is, in this AH the Supreme Court will uphold the Swift v. Tyson doctrine and to this day we have a very unique body of federal general common law still in place. What famous cases might this have impacted and how could this have changed the US both legally and socially over the years?
[1]: Diversity: one of the ways you can get a case in federal court is through diversity. This is where a citizen of Texas can sue a citizen of New York and its good because there is diversity. The diversity requirement is what keeps Texans from suing Texans in federal court unless there is a specific Constitutional question or Federal act that must be interpreted.