Under collateral estoppel, if a valid federal rule on point exists, which law applies; if not, which doctrine guides the choice of law?

Under collateral estoppel, if a valid federal rule on point exists, which law applies; if not, which doctrine guides the choice of law?

• A. Use the federal rule on point; otherwise Erie
• B. Always state law
• C. Always federal law
• D. Klaxon approach

Answer: (A)

This item tests how a federal court decides which law governs collateral estoppel when there isn’t a federal rule directly on the topic. The Rules Enabling Act gives precedential weight to a valid federal rule on point: if such a rule exists and is applicable, it controls, even if it conflicts with state law. So when there is a federal rule that directly addresses issue preclusion, that rule should be applied. If there isn’t a valid federal rule on point, the court turns to the Erie doctrine for guidance. Erie requires the federal court to apply the state’s substantive law and its choice-of-law rules, so the collateral estoppel effect is determined by the state law that would apply in a state court. In short, use the federal rule on point if one exists; otherwise, apply Erie.

This item tests how a federal court decides which law governs collateral estoppel when there isn’t a federal rule directly on the topic. The Rules Enabling Act gives precedential weight to a valid federal rule on point: if such a rule exists and is applicable, it controls, even if it conflicts with state law. So when there is a federal rule that directly addresses issue preclusion, that rule should be applied.

If there isn’t a valid federal rule on point, the court turns to the Erie doctrine for guidance. Erie requires the federal court to apply the state’s substantive law and its choice-of-law rules, so the collateral estoppel effect is determined by the state law that would apply in a state court. In short, use the federal rule on point if one exists; otherwise, apply Erie.