Developments in the Erie Doctrine: 1991

Abstract

The Supreme Court decided three cases during its October 1990 term that fit under the general rubric of the Erie doctrine. The cases are Business Guides v. Chromatic Communications Ent.,' Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. ,2 and Salve Regina College v. Russell.3 None of the cases clarify the condition of prior law significantly except Salve Regina College, which involves an important matter concerning the administration of state law in diversity actions. Before the 1990 term, the Supreme Court's last major analysis of conflicts between Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state law, which is the subject of Business Guides, occurred in Burlington Northern Railroad v. Woods.4 In Burlington Northern, the Court found Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 to be in conflict with an Alabama statute, but affirmed the validity of Rule 38 under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 2072. The Court held that a rule promulgated under 28 U.S.C. ? 2072 does not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right within the meaning of the statute, if the rule only incidentally affect[s] . . . substantive rights and is reasonably necessary to maintain the integrity of [the uniform and consistent system of procedure that it was the purpose of Congress to authorize under the Act].5 Thus, the Court appeared to be establishing a balancing test that would measure the validity of a Federal Rule in part by how much the rule encroached on state substantive policies and in part by how much the rule was necessary to the uniform scheme of federal procedure. In Business Guides, the Court addressed a challenge to the validity of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 as applied to a represented party who had signed a document in violation of the rule, but in good faith. As always when Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been challenged