Also known as: adjectival laws · adjective law · adjective laws · procedural law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The body of rules governing procedure and practice. These rules supply the methods by which courts enforce substantive rights and award remedies.
Abigail Alvarez, a State A resident, sued Alliance Holdings in federal court in State A for breach of a supply contract formed in State A. The court applied State A substantive contract rules to decide whether a liquidated damages clause was enforceable while using federal rules to govern the timing and form of the defendant's answer.
Antonio Alvarado sued Guaranty Trust Co. in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a trust dispute. The court applied the state statute of limitations rather than any federal adjectival rule because the state rule was outcome-determinative for the state-law claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ariana Azizi sued Wilson & Co. for personal injuries in federal court. The court issued an order under federal procedural authority compelling her to submit to a medical examination even though state practice differed.
Austin Abbott sued Plumer in federal court after a car accident in State A. The court applied the federal rule permitting service on a household member rather than the stricter state requirement because the federal rule was valid procedural law.
Arcadia Retail sued Northern Pipeline Construction Co. in bankruptcy court over a contract claim. The court declined to adjudicate the state-law contract issues because federal procedural limits barred non-Article III adjudication of those claims.
Ava Adebayo, a minority shareholder, sued Technicolor, Inc. in Delaware court seeking appraisal. The court applied Delaware procedural rules governing the presentation of valuation evidence and the allocation of burdens during the hearing.
Adjectival law supplies the procedures for enforcing rights while substantive law defines the rights themselves. In diversity actions federal courts apply federal adjectival law and state substantive law. A state presumption that shifts the burden of persuasion on a state-law claim is treated as substantive and must be followed.
Supporting sources
A federal court refuses to apply a state procedural rule when a valid federal rule of civil procedure directly conflicts with it. The federal rule then controls because it is adjectival law enacted under congressional authority.
Supporting sources
The effect of a state-law presumption is substantive when it alters the burden of persuasion on a state-created claim or defense. Federal courts must therefore apply the state rule governing that effect rather than any federal evidence principle.
Supporting sources
An informal letter does not satisfy federal pleading requirements because the Federal Rules limit pleadings to specific documents such as an answer. Only a properly formatted answer counts as an adjectival step that prevents default.
Supporting sources
…of Erie was therefore identical to that of the Enabling Act: federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. However, as subsequent cases sharpened the distinction between substance and procedure, the line of cases following Erie diverged markedly from the line construing the Enabling Act.…