Tag Archives: Erie Doctrine

Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna

In Albright v. Christensen. No. 21-1046 (6th Cir. Jan 31, 2022), a 2-1 panel holds that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bar application of Michigan state-law rules requiring that a lawsuit against a medical professional for malpractice be preceded by 182-days’ notice to the defendant and accompanied by an  “affidavit of merit signed byContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna”

Another Court of Appeals Has to Write an Opinion Reminding Litigants That Fed. R. Evid. 702 Applies to Nearly All Cases in Federal Court Involving Expert Testimony

In Love v. United States, No. 20-3534 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021), the Seventh Circuit issues a short opinion devoted entirely to knocking down an argument that state rather than federal expert-witness evidence rules apply to a case governed by state law. This mirrors a recent Second Circuit opinion from October 6, 2021. Plaintiff VargasContinue reading “Another Court of Appeals Has to Write an Opinion Reminding Litigants That Fed. R. Evid. 702 Applies to Nearly All Cases in Federal Court Involving Expert Testimony”

Second Circuit Holds That Under Hanna v. Plumer, Federal Rather Than State Expert Witness Rules Apply in Diversity Tort Case

In Sarkees v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., No. 20-3170 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2021), the Second Circuit reverses summary judgment in negligence, strict products liability, and loss of consortium action on the ground that the district court erroneously excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness by applying state-law admissibility rules rather than the FederalContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Under Hanna v. Plumer, Federal Rather Than State Expert Witness Rules Apply in Diversity Tort Case”

Fifth Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1631 Transfer Can Cure a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co., No. 19-30316 (5th Cir. July 8, 2021), the Fifth Circuit joins other circuits that have held that 28 U.S.C. § 1631 can cure defective personal as well as subject-matter jurisdiction. But the panel split on the interaction between § 1631 and Louisiana’s “prescription” (limitations) law. A vehicular accident onContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1631 Transfer Can Cure a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”