--- title: "Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/erie-railroad-v-tompkins --- # Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson and held that there is no federal general common law; federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit. The decision transformed the relationship between federal and state courts and remains one of the most important federalism decisions in American law. ## Citation 304 U.S. 64 (1938) ## Year 1938 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts Harry Tompkins was walking along a railroad right-of-way in Hughestown, Pennsylvania, when he was struck by a door protruding from a passing Erie Railroad train. Tompkins was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and Erie Railroad was a New York corporation. Tompkins filed suit in the Southern District of New York. Under Pennsylvania common law, Tompkins would have been considered a trespasser owed only a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure him. Under the federal general common law as interpreted by the court under Swift v. Tyson, Tompkins would be owed a higher duty of ordinary care. ## Procedural History The federal district court applied Swift v. Tyson and used federal general common law rather than Pennsylvania state law, applying the higher duty of care. The jury found for Tompkins and awarded damages. The Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. ## Issue Whether federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction should apply the substantive common law of the state in which they sit or may apply an independent body of federal general common law. ## Holding The Supreme Court overruled Swift v. Tyson and held that there is no federal general common law. Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state, including state decisional law, not merely state statutes. The case was remanded for application of Pennsylvania law. ## Reasoning Justice Brandeis reasoned that Swift v. Tyson had proven unworkable in practice, leading to forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law. Under Swift, noncitizens could choose federal court to gain the benefit of more favorable federal common law, creating discrimination against citizens of the state who were bound by state law in state court. Brandeis argued that the Constitution does not grant Congress or federal courts power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable to diversity cases. The Rules of Decision Act requires federal courts to apply state law as their rules of decision except where federal law governs. The persistence of Swift had prevented uniformity and encouraged manipulation of jurisdiction. ## Dissent Justice Butler dissented, joined by Justice McReynolds, arguing that the question of overruling Swift had not been briefed or argued by the parties and that the doctrine of stare decisis counseled against overturning nearly a century of precedent without full adversarial consideration. ## Impact Erie is one of the most consequential decisions in American civil procedure and federalism. It eliminated forum shopping based on the availability of more favorable federal common law and ensured that the outcome of litigation would not depend on whether the case was heard in state or federal court. The Erie doctrine generated a complex body of law about what constitutes 'substantive' versus 'procedural' law, leading to important follow-up cases like Guaranty Trust, Byrd, and Hanna v. Plumer. ## Key Quotes - There is no federal general common law. - Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. - Swift v. Tyson introduced grave discrimination by non-citizens against citizens. It made rights enjoyed under the unwritten 'law' vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state or in the federal court. ## Related Cases - hanna-v-plumer - shady-grove-v-allstate - guaranty-trust-v-york - byrd-v-blue-ridge ## Exam Relevance Erie is arguably the most frequently tested civil procedure case on law school exams. Students must be able to apply the Erie doctrine to determine whether state or federal law governs a particular issue in a diversity case. Exam questions often present borderline substantive/procedural issues and require students to work through the Erie analysis, including the Hanna v. Plumer framework for cases involving Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ## Study Tips - Master the core rule: in diversity cases, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. - Understand the twin aims of Erie: discouraging forum shopping and avoiding inequitable administration of the law. - Be able to articulate the Erie analysis step by step: is there a Federal Rule on point (Hanna v. Plumer)? If not, does the issue involve substance or procedure (outcome-determinative test, balance of interests)? - Connect Erie to Hanna v. Plumer and Shady Grove, which refine the analysis for situations where a Federal Rule conflicts with state law. ## Doctrine Established Erie Doctrine (No Federal General Common Law) --- Source: [Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/erie-railroad-v-tompkins)