Rules of Decision Act


Also found in: Wikipedia.

Rules of Decision Act

The Rules of Decision Act, (28 U.S.C.A. § 1652 [1948]) provides that where the Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress are inapplicable, the law of the state in which the federal court is sitting should apply to civil actions.

First enacted in 1789, the act is designed to discourage forum-shopping and to avoid the unfair administration of laws in cases heard by federal courts because of the Diversity of Citizenship of the parties. The landmark decision in erie railroad co. v. tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938), interpreted the Rules of Decision Act to include not only state statutes, but also controlling judicial decisions or state Common Law as constituting the laws of the state. Erie overruled swift v. tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which construed the Rules of Decision Act as not requiring federal courts to apply state common law in diversity cases.

Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Part III introduces the Rules of Decision Act (RDA) (13) as the
THE RULES OF DECISION ACT AS A LIMITATION ON FEDERAL COMMON
Towards a unified theory of "reverse-Erie"
Resolving Separation of Powers and Federalism Problems Raised by Erie, the Rules of Decision Act, and the Rules Enabling Act: A Proposed Solution, 32 CAP.
A blueprint for applying the Rules Enabling Act's supersession clause
The Supreme Court analyzed these cases under the Rules of Decision Act [123] and proposed a number of different tests and rationales to use in making this determination.
When no conflicting federal law exists, Hanna affirmed that the case must be decided under the Rules of Decision Act, and the opinion contains extensive dicta on how a federal court should then proceed.
Upsetting the balance between adverse interests: the impact of the Supreme Court's trilogy on expert testimony in toxic tort litigation
In fact, however, the Rules of Decision Act is not a regulation of the judicial decision-making process because it does not create any new legal rule for courts to follow.
But I actually owe these insights about the Rules of Decision Act to Lee Liberman Otis, to whom I am grateful.
Controlling precedent: congressional regulation of judicial decision-making
73) The court reasoned that the Rules of Decision Act, (74) which
The Rules of Decision Act (240) states, "The laws of the
Confusing the means for the ends: how a pro-settlement policy risks undermining the aims of Title VII
Only the Rules of Decision Act escapes the sweep of Lawson's sweepingly narrow view of the Sweeping Clause, but only because Lawson thinks it "an exhortation rather than a regulation," being merely "declaratory" of what the Constitution requires in any event.
And I think I should be able to get them, because this time I've got Lawson dead to rights: His two key concessions--first, the nuclear alternatives of impeachment and nonexecution as constitutionally legitimate checks on the courts; and second, the legitimacy (or at least harmlessness) of the Rules of Decision Act as a statute declaratory of what should be understood as the proper constitutional rule in any event--give away the whole ballgame.
Lawson's awesone (also wrong, some)
the Rules of Decision Act Blocks Supreme Federal Common Law, 83 NW.
State courts and the making of federal common law

Legal browser ?
Full browser ?