[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: KMC
Date: 05 Jan 2002
Time: 15:40:18
This question was looking to test your general understanding of procedure, such as jury and motion practice, as well as your knowledge of the Erie problem.
The issue is straightforward: does federal or state law govern the general-verdict/two-issue rule? The federal circuits are currently split on this issue. Thus, a critical point here is that there was no "right" answer, so students could come out either way. And thus a "model answer," as opposed to "notes on a model answer," would be inappropriate.
No Federal Rule of Civil Procedure covers this point, so ad-hoc interest analysis is the proper Erie approach.
To my mind, and in the abstract, the federal interests (in, inter alia, regulating review of the federal juries) predominate. However, the Supreme Court in Gasperini shed a new light on the problem. After all, Gasperini relegated the very issue of judicial review of a jury decision to state law. (I am thus speaking of Gasperini's review-of-jury half, not its inapplicable review-of-judge half.) The outcome-determinative effect holding relatively constant, it would therefore seem that Gasperini calls for state law in this case.
But a significant ground for distinguishing Gasperini is that the state interests of South Carolina seem to be more focused on the efficiency of avoiding retrial than any more substantive purpose such as favoring plaintiffs. Because the state interests in efficiency would not be undercut by refusing to apply state law in federal court, one could argue that the strong federal interests should reassert themselves to allow the application of federal law.
Therefore, most of your discussion should have dealt with how Gasperini affected the division between state and federal law on jury regulation. There are many subissues (e.g., the same kind of issue presents itself on whether the federal court can remand for a new trial on damages alone with liability established, despite any contrary state law on new trials), which might or might not have been discussed.
In sum, it is not clear how this case comes out under Gasperini, but this case clearly shows what was wrong with Gasperini.