The case of: Erie Railroad v Tompkins 304 US 64, 58 SCt 817, 82 L. Ed 1188, 114 ALR 1487 (1938)

1. To what extent if at all had Federal Courts been obliged to follow the decisions of State courts before this opinion?
The rule of law states that except in matters governed by the United States Constitution or Act of Congress, the law that is to be applied in any case is the law of the state. The Erie Doctrine named after the Supreme Court case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), states that if a federal court is hearing a case that deals with a state law issue, it should apply the state’s substantive law rather than using federal common law. As there is no longer a Federal Common Law, the common law of the state must be applicable. However in certain cases when making civil procedure judgements the Federal Court may use the Federal Rules instead of the state’s rules. Prior to this case in 1938 the Swift v Tyson doctrine stated that regardless of state common law the federal courts could apply the law according to what they believed to be justice. …show more content…
A certiorari or what is otherwise known as a quashing order was granted by the Supreme Court, ‘’ Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, we granted certiorari.’’
It was noted by the Judge that in this particular case the doctrine was unable to promote the equality of protection of the law and prevented consistency in the running of the law of the