Opinion ID: 2996267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: The Seventh Circuit has held that a uniform federallaw approach applies to procedural questions which concern the allocation of responsibility between the trial court and appellate court. See Mayer v. Gary Partners & Co., 29 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 1994). State law does not govern the relation between the trial court and the appellate court in a diversity litigation. Id. Therefore, while the district court was required to apply state substantive law, appellate review is governed by federal law, which is deferential except on questions of law. See Gasperini v. Center for the Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 437 (1996); Starrels v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1168, 1170 (7th Cir. 1989); Powell v. Gant, 556 N.E.2d 1241, 1245 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). Appellate review of the No. 01-1952 11 legal precepts used by the district court and the court’s interpretation of those precedents is plenary. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 239 (1991) (“courts of appeals review the state-law determinations of district courts de novo”); Donovan v. Robbins, 752 F.2d 1170, 1178 (7th Cir. 1985). Given the district court’s dismissal of the case on defendants’ motion, any inferences reasonably drawn from the factual allegations of the complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. In re Healthcare Compare Corp. Sec. Litig., 75 F.3d 276, 279 (7th Cir. 1996).