Edward K. Cheng

Document Type


Publication Title

Vanderbilt Law Review

Publication Date


Page Number



toxic tort cases, substantive law, procedural law, evidence, civil procedure


Civil Procedure | Evidence | Law | Torts


Jay Tidmarsh offers an intriguing new test for drawing the allimportant line between procedure and substance for purposes of Erie. The Tidmarsh test is attractively simple, yet seemingly reaches the right result in separating out truly “procedural” rules from more substantive ones. Since I am not a proceduralist, in this Response I will leave the Tidmarsh test’s explanatory power and practical workability vis-à-vis general civil procedure rules to others more qualified than I. Instead, I want to focus on the implications of the Tidmarsh test for the Federal Rules of Evidence. Like others in the evidence world, I have long harbored concerns about a potential conflict between Erie and Daubert because of Daubert’s profound impact on toxic tort cases. Professor Tidmarsh’s article offers an opportunity to revisit this concern, as well as a chance to think broadly about the relationship between Erie and evidentiary rules.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.