by Krystle Hernandez

Created on: July 05, 2010

When most people think of the law, they rarely consider the distinctions between substantive law and procedural law.  Nevertheless, the differences between these two categories of the law are extremely important in that they provide a framework through which attorneys, judges, and other members of the legal world look at a particular case or an issue within a case. So, what exactly is the difference between "substantive law" and "procedural law"?

Substantive law is 'law' that defines, regulates, and creates the obligations and rights of a particular party.  In other words, many state and federal statutes are substantive laws that create causes of action and allow for individuals to bring forth claims that their rights under these substantive laws have been violated.

By contrast, procedural laws are laws that dictate the precise steps that a party must take in order to have a particular right (created by a substantive law) enforced by the courts.  Notably, however, some procedural laws can ultimately make or break a case.  For example, most jurisdictions have statutes of limitation in place that set forth a specific amount of time during which an individual can bring a cause of action in court.  In many cases, if a party does not adhere to the statute of limitations, this procedural law can then bar the party from adjudicating their claims.

Although it may seem as though substantive versus procedural laws are easily discernible, the reality is that there are some laws that can blur the boundaries between these two types of law.   One area in which these distinctions play a particularly relevant part is in the area of Civil Procedure, where the Erie Doctrine is used by courts to determine whether state or federal laws apply when a case that was originally filed in a state court subsequently reaches the federal judicial system.  At its core, the doctrine suggests that federal courts sitting in diversity of citizenship cases must apply state law. 

In the landmark case of Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945), the Supreme Court held that a federal court is obligated to apply a state's statute of limitations.  Although the court found that the state's statute of limitations fell within the scope of the Erie Doctrine (and thus the federal court was required to apply state law), the case is perhaps best known for the discussion of what laws do not fall within the scope of the Erie Doctrine.  Thus, the court held that the Erie doctrine applied only to issues that were based in substantive law, and not procedural law.  In other words, a federal court can completely ignore a state's procedural laws and rely on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to direct the appropriate courses of actions in a particular dispute.

Learn more about this author, Krystle Hernandez.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.