Head-on Collision of Gasperini and the Derailment of Erie: Exposing the Futility of the Accommodation Doctrine, The

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|Despite the common sentiment among law school students that cases such as Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins and Hannah v. Plummer made Civil Procedure the toughest first-year course, simplifying concepts is the key. Dating back 2,000 years, early Greek philosophers struggled with the conundrum of squaring a circle. Aristotle logically pointed out that a square is not a circle, nor is a circle a square. Children encounter this basic truth when faced with the daunting task of fitting wooden pegs of certain shapes into their corresponding silhouette. It becomes apparent that the square peg cannot fit into the circular cut-out, no matter how many splinters are suffered trying. Except for sawing-off the edges of the square, in essence rounding it out, the square had no place in the circle's properly designated spot. Assume, for the purposes of this Article, that federal interests will be categorized as the circle, and conversely, state interests will be represented by the square. Applying this geometric metaphor to the civil procedure dilemma of whether state or federal law controls in a federal diversity action, one arrives at the nostalgic conclusion that it is impossible for the circle to be congruous to the square...