I liked how he explained it however I didn't like that he didn't use any of the necessary tests to explain why, e.g., Hanna 1&2, modified outcome determinative test, etc., Which is arguably the most important part. If the judge asks how you came up with your analysis, you can't just say because I know. You have to explain the tests you used.
This analysis should be taken further. The answer to the choice of law question may change depending on whether the law in question is Substantive or Procedural.
Agreed. Also, as I learned the Hanna track analyses the determination that a practice is a federal rule is not the end of the analysis. For purposes of the bar, at least, you must discuss whether the rule is "arguably procedural" and further whether it abridges a fundamental state substantive right.
I think this is all more easily understandable when it is limited to a federal district court, but when it involves an appeal it's less clear. Like, if the fact, the wrong, happened e.g. in Houston, State of Texas and I appealed up to the 5th Cir. Court of Appeals, which sits in New Orleans, State of Louisiana, would the court would apply Texas law? Also, in "How To Tackle Venue" he says I can also sue based on which State the other person is from. So, like before, the fact, the wrong, happened in Houston, State of Texas, but I sue based on where the other person is from, which is Aberdeen, State of Mississippi. I appeal up to the 5th Cir. Court of Appeals, which still sits in New Orleans, State of Louisiana. What state law would the court apply? Texas or Mississippi?
This guy is wrong. If the rule or procedure is a federal statute or federal rule of civil procedure, then you ask whether it is within the rules enabling act and if it is constitutional, and if it's yes for both questions, then you should apply the federal rule or procedure.
This guy wanders into the weeds and the video gets confusing. Recognize the problem: this part is straightforward and the right 1st step. Classify: this part gets curly because if it’s a fed law (Constitution, fed statute, or FRCP) then it’s not a state law claim. Yes, the choice is clear - go with fed law because you aren’t adjudicating a state law claim! BUT IF it’s a state law claim, then classify whether the issue is substantive or procedural. That’s where the guy is lost in the weeds as he nominates a single test - forum shopping - as determinative.
Eerie analysis In diversity actions (state law claims in federal court): determine if the issue is procedural or substantive. If procedural apply federal law, if substantive apply state law. if it's unclear whether the issue is substantive or procedural, then court must determine if federal and state law conflict. If they DONT conflict- apply both harmoniously. If they DO conflict - then court must look to whether there is a federal statute or rule covering the specific issue. If there is no "on point" federal rule or statute, then court has to decide whether to apply federal common law or state law. This decision is based on whether state law is "outcome determinative" I am now on youtube trying to find an example of what "outcome determinative" means/looks like but no luck yet...
It’s funny because I’m currently taking Kaplan bar review and their answer explanations said the EXACT OPPOSITE that this Kaplan instructor is now saying. Kaplan bar review is so disorganized on completely different pages as one another compared to what my peers tell me about Barbri and Themis. I guess you get what you pay for.
Yes. Unless of course civ pro is being tested on essays, in which case I would not risk blowing a whole answer when there aren't many to fall back on. I just had it for MBE.
