This is what I have been doing for the last 2 hours

I outlined the creation of the Erie Doctrine:


Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tompkins; resident of PA
Defendant: Erie Railroad Co.; corporation in NY. (Erie)

Procedural History
A. Tompkins was injured while walking on a path along the railroads right of way
B. Tompkins brought an action in Federal Court in Southern NY
-Fed Court in So. NY had jurisdiction because Erie was a corporation of that state
-Trial Judge refused to rule that the applicable law precluded recovery.
-Jury brought in a verdict in favor of Tompkins for $30,000.
C. Erie appealed; judgement affirmed by circuit court of appeals
-Circuit Court of Appeals claimed: Where general law is applied, as it should in this case, federal courts are free, in absence of local statute, to exercise their judgement as to what law is.
D. Erie appealed to SCOTUS. Supreme Court granted cert
- Because of the importance of the question whether federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the PA common law

Facts
A. Tompkins was injured by an Erie train while walking along a path in the along the train’s right of way
B. Tompkins Argument:
- Accident happened by Erie’s negligence
- He had a right to be where he was walking because it was a commonly used beaten foot path and there was no statute claiming otherwise.
- He was struck by something that looked like a door projecting from one of the moving cars.
C. Erie’s Argument:
- Its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser.
- It’s duty/liability to Tompkins should be determined in accordance with PA common law as declared by the PA highest court that says people using pathways along railways are trespassing and that the railroad is not liable to undiscovered trespassers accidents resulting from its negligence.

Question Presented
A. Whether the oft-challenged doctrine of Swift v. Tyson should be disapproved
- Main ruling in that case stated the “laws of several states” in the Rules of Declaration Act does not include state common law.

Holding
A. Yes, the Swift v. Tyson doctrine should be disapproved and federal courts should apply state common law. (The creation of the Erie Doctrine)

Rule
A. Swift v. Tyson = federal courts are free to exercise an independent judgment as to what the common law of the State is or should be because of section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
- More recent research by a scholar examining the original document shows that the construction given to it by the Court was erroneous, and the purpose of the section was merely to make certain that in all matters except those in which some federal law is controlling, the federal courts exercising jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases would apply as their rules of decision the law of the State, unwritten as well as written.
B. Experience in applying the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson had revealed its political and social defects; and the benefits expected to flow from the rule did not accrue.
- It introduced grave discrimination by non-citizens against citizens
- Made rights enjoyed under the unwritten “general law” vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state or in the federal court, and the privilege of selecting that court was left to the non-citizen. This rendered the equal protection clause impossible
C. 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 Sate. That includes law made by the legislature of that state or the highest court of that state.
- There is no federal common law.
- Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state.
- SCOTUS declare that in in applying the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson this court and lower courts have invaded rights which in their opinion are reserved by the Constitution to the several States.