Origin Established by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), overturning Swift v. Tyson (1842).
The Erie doctrine is the rule that federal courts in the United States, when hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction rather than a federal question, must apply the substantive law of the state whose law governs the dispute rather than fashion a federal common law rule of their own. It comes from the 1938 decision of the Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, which overturned the older rule from Swift v. Tyson that had let federal judges disregard the rulings of state courts on so-called general questions of law. Under Erie, a federal court looks first to see whether state law clearly governs the issue, and if it does not, predicts how the highest court of that state would decide the question, an exercise sometimes called an Erie guess. The doctrine was meant to stop the same case from coming out differently depending only on whether it was filed in state or federal court, ending what had become a dual system of law and discouraging plaintiffs from picking a federal forum purely to get a more favorable rule.
Facts
Origin PeriodEstablished by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), overturning Swift v. Tyson (1842). 1 Core PrincipleFederal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the state where they sit rather than fashion their own general common law. 1 Origin Period
Origin Period (category)20th Century (1900-1999) 1 Classification
Doctrine Category Connections
Formulated By
Justice Brandeis wrote the Court's opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938). That case is not yet a live entity in this atlas; filed as a mint candidate.
In Area Of Law
Entity-backed identity for the doctrine category value this doctrine already carries as an enum fact, resolved to a doctrine entity by an explicit value-to-entity map (phase 3 bucket conversion, docs\design_entity_backed_browse_buckets_20260928.md). The enum fact itself stays on the entity unchanged.
In Legal System
U.S. federal courts doctrine requiring application of state substantive law in diversity cases.
Sources
1. Erie Doctrine (Cornell LII Wex)
Cornell Law School Legal Information InstituteCornell LII Wex, Erie Doctrine entry, opening definitional sentence
The Erie doctrine is a binding principle requiring federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law, as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Cornell LII Wex, Erie Doctrine entry, discussion of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
View the Source 2. Wikipedia: Erie doctrine
- a fundamental principle of civil procedure in the United States that requires federal courts to apply state substantive law
- In Group: Jurisdiction and Choice-of-Forum Doctrines, lead: requires federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity disputes
View the SourceFrequently Asked Questions
What does the Erie doctrine require?
Federal courts must apply state substantive law in cases without a federal question.
The Erie doctrine is a principle of United States civil procedure that requires federal courts to apply state substantive law in disputes that do not directly involve a federal question. This most commonly occurs when a federal court is exercising diversity jurisdiction. It follows from the Supreme Court decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), which overturned Swift v. Tyson.
What were the two main objectives of the Erie decision?
Discouraging forum shopping and avoiding inequitable administration of the laws.
There are two main objectives of the Erie decision: to discourage forum shopping among litigants, and to avoid inequitable administration of the laws.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.