(Redish and Phillips, 1979; paraphrased)
Burbank (1934) states in the "Rules Enabling Act of 1934" published in May 1982 in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review " that unless one is a cynic, it would leave one to wonder "that the original Federal Rules of Civil Procedure survived challenges intact." The decision of the court in more recent decisions such as in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., has remained essentially unchanged.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Quite simply, the Federal courts do not have the Constitutional right to claim superiority over the decisions made by and within the individual states but instead, the Federal Courts serve to provide a venue for those cases of diversity and in which justice is better served by the hearing being set in the Federal rather than the state courts. This work sought to examine the statements of: (1) 'The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been drafted without enough consideration to how substance and procedure co-exist in society'; and (2) 'Substance...
In reality that which is left unspecified or which appears to be ill-defined within the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that which allows the courts the ability to ensure fairness in the process of the courts and that which serves to eliminate bias for non-citizens in states where they do not reside in which they do not place their vote while at the same time ensuring that the laws are applied within the individual states in a coherent manner eliminating extreme deviation from case law in the individual states.
Bibliography
Burbank, Stephen B. (1982) the Rules Enabling Act of 1934. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1982 May Vol. 130. No.5. Formerly the Law Register.
Statsky, W.P. And Matz, D. (1977) Introduction to Civil Litigations. West Publishing. 1977.
Redish, M.H. And Phillips. C.G. (1977) Erie and the Rules of Decision Act: In Search of the Appropriate Dilemma.…
