Also known as: federal common law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A historical body of judge-made rules that federal courts developed and applied in diversity cases before 1938. The doctrine permitted federal courts to disregard state substantive law and instead fashion independent federal rules of decision for common-law claims.
Gina Griffin, a citizen of State A, sued Grandview Holdings, a State B corporation, in federal court in State A for breach of a supply agreement. The court applied State A contract rules on formation and damages rather than any independent federal standard.
Gabriel Gonzalez, a citizen of State A, sued Greta Goldstein, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State A after a counseling dispute. The court applied an independent federal common-law rule on confidentiality rather than State A evidence law.
Gateway Bank, a citizen of State A, sued Frontier Merchandise, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State A over a forged endorsement on a check. The court applied an independent federal common-law standard rather than varying state banking rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Textile Workers Union, a citizen of State A, sued Lincoln Mills, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State A to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement. The court applied independent federal common-law rules rather than state contract principles.
Granite Rock Company, a citizen of State A, sued the Teamsters local, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State A to enforce a no-strike provision. The court applied independent federal common-law rules rather than state formation rules.
Erie ended the practice by requiring federal courts in diversity cases to apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit, including state choice-of-law rules. Federal courts may no longer create independent rules for ordinary state-law claims.
Supporting sources
General federal common law was a broad, pre-Erie doctrine that displaced state law in diversity cases. Modern federal common law exists only in narrow areas involving uniquely federal interests, such as disputes over U.S. commercial paper or privileges recognized under federal evidence rules.
Supporting sources
A federal court may fashion federal common law only when the issue implicates uniquely federal interests, such as the negotiability of checks payable by the United States or privileges that protect confidential communications in federal-question cases.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege is a specific federal common-law rule recognized in federal-question and diversity cases alike. It protects confidential communications made during diagnosis or treatment and operates like the attorney-client privilege.
Supporting sources
…Court's attribution to § 301 of a direction to the federal courts to fashion, out of bits and pieces elsewhere to be gathered, a federal common law of labor contracts, it still does not follow that Congress has enacted that an agreement to arbitrate industrial differences be specifically enforceable in the federal courts. On the…