Top 10 Most Read
Wells Fargo accused of 'boys club' culture
Loss of more than an election
Appellate Practice
Jun. 8, 2000
Cooperative Federalism
Practitioner: Appellate Law By James C. Martin and Benjamin G. Shatz Every lawyer knows that Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), held that there is no general federal common law and that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply applicable substantive state law. But how does a federal court apply state law when faced with a state-law issue of first impression?
James C. Martin
Partner, Reed Smith LLP
Phone: (213) 457-8002
Email: jcmartin@reedsmith.com
James is in the firm's Appellate Group, resident in the Los Angeles and Pittsburgh offices. He is certified as specialists in appellate law by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization.
Benjamin G. Shatz
Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Appellate Law (Certified), Litigation
Email: bshatz@manatt.com
Benjamin is a certified specialist in appellate law who co-chairs the Appellate Practice Group at Manatt in the firm's Los Angeles office. Exceptionally Appealing appears the first Tuesday of the month.
Every lawyer knows that Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), held that there is no general federal common law and that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply applicable substantive state law. But how does a federal court apply state law when faced with a state-law issue of first impression?
One approach, of course, is simply to abstain and wait for a state court determination of the issue. But abstention can be an unsatisfying and awkward s...