Also known as: federal general common-law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An obsolete body of judge-made substantive rules that federal courts once applied in diversity cases independent of the law of any particular state. Federal courts may not create or apply such rules to state-law claims and must instead follow state substantive law together with the forum state's conflict-of-laws rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Faye Fuller, a New York resident, sued Fulton Shipping, a Delaware corporation, in federal district court in New York for breach of a maritime supply contract. The court applied New York contract law, including New York's choice-of-law rules, to decide whether the liquidated-damages clause was enforceable. It refused to fashion a uniform federal rule on commercial reasonableness.
Frank Fisher, a Pennsylvania resident, sued Erie Railroad in federal court in New York after being injured by a passing train while walking along the tracks in Pennsylvania. The court applied Pennsylvania tort law rather than any independent federal standard of care for railroad liability.
Faith Fitzgerald, a Vermont resident, sued Granite Valley University in federal court in New Hampshire over termination from a joint research program. The court looked to New Hampshire substantive law and its conflict rules to select the governing employment doctrine instead of creating a nationwide federal employment rule.
Flora Ford sued American Electric Power in federal court in Colorado after fracking operations allegedly contaminated her ranch. The court applied Colorado nuisance and trespass law, including Colorado's conflict rules, and declined to adopt a federal limitation on liability near critical-energy infrastructure.
Floyd Franklin sued a military contractor in federal court after suffering injury from an allegedly defective helicopter part. The court applied state tort law to the design-defect claim and refused to displace it with a newly created federal common-law immunity rule.
Fiona Foster, a foreign national, sued a U.S. official in federal court alleging arbitrary detention abroad. The court applied the narrow federal common-law standards recognized under the Alien Tort Statute rather than inventing a broader general common-law cause of action.
Erie holds that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit, including that state's conflict-of-laws rules, rather than any independent body of judge-made federal rules. The decision rejected the prior practice under Swift v. Tyson of applying a uniform federal common law to state-law claims.
Supporting sources
No. Erie rejected only the general common law that federal courts once applied to ordinary state-law claims in diversity. Federal common law still exists in limited enclaves where a unique federal interest or constitutional structure requires a uniform federal rule, such as certain disputes involving the United States as a party or interstate boundaries.
…declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State whether they be local in their nature or "general," be they commercial law or a part of the law of…
…declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law
…of jurisdiction and proceed to the merits. See Nye v. United States , 313 U. S. 33, 44 (1941). IV A “There is no federal general common law
…Case information - Citation: 499 U.S. 225, 238 (1991) Majority opinion Opinion of Justice Blackmun The concept of a federal general common law
Supporting sources
No. The federal court must apply the forum state's choice-of-law rules exactly as a state court would. Creating an independent federal conflicts rule would constitute the very federal general common law that Erie forbids.
Supporting sources
The Act directs federal courts to treat state judicial decisions as rules of decision in cases at common law or in equity unless the Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress otherwise require. Erie interpreted the Act and the Constitution to bar federal courts from declaring substantive common-law rules for matters outside federal legislative competence.
Supporting sources
It produced forum shopping because litigants could choose federal or state court depending on which offered more favorable substantive rules. It also produced inequitable administration of the laws because the same conduct could yield different outcomes solely because of the court chosen.
Supporting sources