Opinion ID: 168353
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Substance versus Procedure

Text: 60 The distinction between state substantive and procedural law has proven elusive, largely because many state rules generally reflect a mix of substantive and procedural concerns. See D. Michael Risinger, Substance and Procedure Revisited with Some Afterthoughts on the Constitutional Problems of Irrebuttable Presumptions, 30 UCLA L.Rev. 189, 190 (1982) (noting that the closest thing there is to a developed school of thought concerning the meaning of the procedure-substance dichotomy is really an abdication of analysis, wilfully embraced.). Nonetheless, some fundamental elements consistently define the substance-procedure dichotomy. 61 A pure rule of evidence ... is concerned solely with accuracy and economy in litigation .... Barron v. Ford Motor Co., 965 F.2d 195, 199 (7th Cir.1992). Such rules are addressed to lawyers and judges in their professional roles and govern the means by which disputes regarding the content or application of substantive rules should be resolved. The purpose of these rules is to achieve accuracy, efficiency, and fair play in litigation, without regard to the substantive interests of the parties. Michael Lewis Wells, The Impact of Substantive Interests on the Law of Federal Courts, 30 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 499, 504 (1989). 62 As John Hart Ely observed, 63 [A] procedural rule is ... one designed to make the process of litigation a fair and efficient mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Thus, one way of doing things may be chosen over another because it is thought to be more likely to get at the truth, or better calculated to give the parties a fair opportunity to present their sides of the story, or because, and this may point quite the other way, it is a means of promoting the efficiency of the process. 64 John Hart Ely, The Irrepressible Myth of Erie, 87 Harv. L.Rev. 693, 724-25 (1974). 65 In contrast, a substantive rule is concerned with the channeling of behavior outside the courtroom. Barron, 965 F.2d at 199. Substantive rules are directed at individuals and governments and tell them to do or abstain from certain conduct on pain of some sanction. Substantive rules are based on legislative and judicial assessments of the society's wants and needs, and they help to shape the world of primary activity outside the courtroom. Wells, supra, at 504. Ely elaborates upon this idea: 66 The most helpful way ... of defining a substantive rule ... is as a right granted for one or more nonprocedural reasons, for some purpose or purposes not having to do with the fairness or efficiency of the litigation process. Thus, in attempting to give content to the notion of substance, the literature has focused on those rules of law which characteristically and reasonably affect people's conduct at the stage of primary private activity. 67 Ely, supra, at 725 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 9 68 In short, although the distinction between substance and procedure is not always clear, we can distinguish a substantive rule from a procedural rule by examining the language and the policy of the rule in question. If these inquiries point to achieving fair, accurate, and efficient resolutions of disputes, the rule is procedural. If, however, the primary objective is directed to influencing conduct through legal incentives, the rule is substantive. 69