Case Citator › Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
356 U.S. 525
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
76 of 76
Citing cases (total)
76
Treatment dates
1987–1999
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. has been criticized. All 76 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Fifth Circuit criticized its treatment of federal courts' institutional interests, and the Fourth Circuit later questioned whether its balancing test retained force after Hanna v. Plumer. Those two treatments are listed below. Some opinions describe Byrd as “overruled on other grounds” by Hanna, but Hanna cited Byrd approvingly while deciding the effect of a valid Federal Rule on a conflicting state service requirement.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

76 later cases cite Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; 76 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Fifth Circuit criticized Byrd for giving too little weight to federal courts' institutional interests when state and federal practices conflict.

    In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana on July 9, 1982 · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We think, in the light of later authority, that Byrd gave too little recognition to the federal forum-qua -forum interests.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Fourth Circuit questioned whether Byrd's Erie balancing test remained valid after Hanna, but assumed it applied and reached its result under that test.

    Wade v. Danek Medical · Fourth Circuit · filed

    Even assuming that Byrd retains vitality in the wake of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Hanna, which appeared to revert to a modified version of the York "outcome-determinative" test in cases in which the federal rule was judicially created, we agree with the Vaught and Barela courts that any federal interest in applying the American Pipe rule -namely, in reducing potentially redundant individual filings -is insufficiently strong to justify displacing a state rule to the contrary.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace