Yukio  Ota

オオタ ユキオ

太田 幸夫

Surugadai University Academic Information Repository

Summary : The Late Doctrines onSubstance/Procedure Distinction in AmericanLaw著者名(英) Yukio  Otajournal orpublication title比較法文化 : 駿河台大学比較法研究所紀要number 20page range 110-111year 2011URL http://doi.org/10.15004/00000468Creative Commons : 表示 - 非営利 - 改変禁止http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.ja110《Summary》 The Late Doctrines on Substance/ProcedureDistinction  in American LawYukio Ota　American federal courts sitting in diversity cases are obliged to fol-low state law as substantive law since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 （1938） and to follow federal rules as procedural law since the promulgation of Federal Rules for the United States District Courts in 1937. Many disputes have occured as to whether the applicable sta-tutes belong to substantive law or to procedural law. Physical and mental examinations, the necessity of jury trial, service of process, penalty against frivolous appeals and  transfer of case on contractual forum-selection clause are classified as procedural by the U.S. Su-preme Court. On the other hand, burden of proof, statute of limita-tions, res judicata of state court’s dismissal, denial of jurisdiction as to the foreign corporation （not ﬁ ling a written power of attorney desig-nating an agent on whom service of process may be had）, security for expenses in stockholder’s derivative action, arbitration clause, appel-late review of jury verdict on the size of damages and claim preclu-sion by federal court’s dismissal are classiﬁ ed as substantive law by the Court. The latter cases can mostly be seen as procedural on their faces. But they are classiﬁ ed as substantive law because they are com-bined with substantial eﬀ ect. The line between substantive and proce-The Late Doctrines on Substance/Procedure Distinction  in American Law 111dural law can not be easily found. The Erie Doctrine is diﬃ  cult to be explained by a ﬁ xed theory as so-called outcome deternative test or balancing test.　The United States Supreme Court passed a relevant judgment re-cently（Shady Grove Orthopedic P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 130 S.Ct. 1431 （2010））. Shady Grove was an orthopedic hospital in Illinois who was assigned the insurance beneﬁ t by a traﬃ  c casualty. Allstate was an insurance company in New York. Allstate paid the beneﬁ t to Shady Grove, but not on time. Allstate didn’t pay the interest at two percent per month required by New York Insurance Law. Shady Grove ﬁ led a suit in the Eastern District of New York to recover the statutory in-terest on behalf of itself and a class of all others to whom Allstate owes interest according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. New York Insurance Law precludes a suit to recover a penalty from pro-ceeding as a class action. The District Court dismissed the suit apply-ing this law. The Second Circuit aﬃ  rmed. The United States Supreme Court reversed this judgment by a 5 to 4 vote. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The plurarity opinion by Justice Scalia was partly supported by 2 or 3 Justices including the Chief Justice. Justice Stevens ﬁ led a separate opinion that concured in the judgment but part-ly sympathized with the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion was ﬁ led by Justice Ginsberg who was joined by 3 Justices. The dissenting opinion looks to be forming the majority opinion in that it insists on look-ing to the substantive nature of state statute. It is diﬃ  cult to say that the Shady Grove case showed some distinct lodestaron the Erie Doctrine. 　International private law in Japan asks the courts to apply the sub-stantive law assigned by provisions of the General Law concerning Application of Law （2006） and to apply the procedural law of Japan as lex fori. The Erie Dotrine can be referenced , also in Japan, in order to discern the nature of those laws. 

Summary : The Late Doctrines on Substance/Procedure Distinction in American Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Surugadai University Academic Information Repository