MADASHECC : Moms' and Dads' Associated Society Helping to Educate Future Conservative Constitutionalists

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64, S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)

• Tompkins was walking along the railroad tracks in Pennsylvania when he was hit by an open railcar door. Tompkins brought a lawsuit in Federal Court in New York against the Erie Railroad for personal injuries.
  • Under Pennsylvania common law, where the accident occurred, the railroad owed no duty to Tompkins (he was trespassing).
    • So according to Pennsylvania law, Tompkins would have to show that they deliberately ran him over, which is a high standard to meet, and Tompkins probably wouldn't win.
  • There was no explicit Statute in Pennsylvania codifying the law.
• Instead of suing in a Pennsylvania State Court, Tompkins noted that Erie was incorporated in New York. As a Pennsylvania resident, Tompkins sued in Federal Court on diversity jurisdiction.
• The Federal Trial Court found for Tompkins and awarded damages. Erie appealed.
  • Under the Federal common law, the railroad had a duty to take care, so Tompkins didn't have to show that Erie deliberately ran him over.
    • Basically, in the Federal court, Pennsylvania common law did not apply.
  • Erie unsuccessfully argued that under Judiciary Act § 34 (what is now 28 USC § 1652), the Federal Court was bound to use Pennsylvania common law as the basis for their decision.
• The Federal Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court. Erie appealed.
• The US Supreme Court reversed the decision.
  • The US Supreme Court found that Federal courts did not have the power to make up general Federal common law when hearing State law claims under diversity jurisdiction.
    • This is now known as the Erie Doctrine.
  • So basically, the Court found that when you are suing in a Federal court, you have to use the State's common law, so Tompkins would have to prove the same elements in Federal court that he would have to prove if he had brought the case in a Pennsylvania State court.
• With this decision the Court overturned almost a century of Federal civil procedure law, and established the current standard for diversity jurisdictionin Federal courts.
  • The previous standard was that the laws of the several Statesincluded only State Statutes.
    • That meant Federal judges were free to ignore a State's common law and substitute their own rules. (See Swift v. Tyson (41 U.S. 1 (1842)))
  • With this case, the Court overturned Swift, calling it, "an unconstitutional assumption of power by the Courts of the United States."
• §1652currently says, "The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."
• Note that the Erie Doctrine only applied to substantive laws, not procedural laws.
  • Procedural lawsare usually minor things like what size paper should be used for motions and when to take lunch.
  • One of the most important procedural laws is the Statute of Limitations.
    • But look at Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (326 U.S. 9 (1945)), where it was held that the Erie Doctrine can apply to some procedural laws too.
• One interesting piece of trivia about this case is that it's the only one where the US Supreme Court declared something unconstitutional, but never bothered to cite the constitution! It's unclear from the ruling what part of the Constitution it violates.
  • It's assumed they found it was a violation of the 10th Amendment.
• There is one exemption to the Erie Doctrine. When the United States is a party to a case, they do not follow State law, they are bound by Federal law. When there is no Federal Statute, you can use Federal common law.
• Part of this decision was probably because West came out with their Keynote system. Prior to West, most people thought that common law was mostly the same from State to State, but after West, it was pretty obvious that States differed greatly in their interpretation of common law.

http://www.invispress.com/law/…../erie.html

Now this is interesting, as there is no "Federal Common Law". The Federal Government being mainly a body that deals with interstate commerce, and foreign governments, which is why their powers according to the Constitution are very limited and defined, operate under a stutory legal system, referred to as International Admiralty Jurisdiction.

The states, on the other hand, deal with their own internal structures, and are supposedly to have very little interference from the national government, so that each state operates it's Common Law structure in it's own way, is immaterial, and a farsical arguemant. After all, states have different traffic laws don't they? Not all states have the same speed limits do they.

"In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)"

The point in the above statement, is that there is no FEDERAL COMMON LAW. The federal, or national government, operates under statute laws.