Federalism and Mixity in the United States A Survey of Federal Judges Regarding Erie Courts and Louisiana's Civil Law

Abstract

This article explores mixed jurisdiction dynamics in federal-state frameworks. In the United States, where federal and state courts co-exist side-by-side, plaintiffs will in many cases have the ability to forum shop and sue in federal or state court. The combination of jurisdictional overlaps and law selection rules in this duality frequently results in cross-overs, which means that a federal court or a state court does not hear and decide only dossiers concerning federal law or state law, respectively. One of the most important categories in this vein involves litigation between citizens from different states (diversity cases) before federal courts. In a series of landmark decisions (known as Erie and its progeny), the U.S. Supreme Court has elaborated sophisticated rules for federal diversity cases. Under Erie, federal courts presiding over diversity suits must apply state substantive law to state claims. State substantive law includes not only statutory law but also judge-made law. The article discusses potential imprints on Louisiana's civil law traditions in general and the Civil Code in particular when federal courts are called to apply and interpret local law under the Erie paradigm. In light of the general scarcity of data in this area, the author of the article conducted a survey of Article III judges deciding cases under Louisiana law. Unlike the article presenting the findings the survey itself is available online as a companion document.The appendices for this paper are available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2330460