1. Klaxon was motivated by the worry that federal choice-of-law rules would lead to forum shopping between federal and state courts. Given that there is already forum shopping between state courts in order to take advantage of different states' choice-of-law rules, is the Klaxon decision correct? What would be some of the benefits of having federal choice-of-law rules?

2. The decision in Erie, as we have seen, was derived from the U.S. Constitution. Can the same thing be said about York? Was the application of the state statute of limitations rather than the federal tolling doctrine required under the U.S. Constitution? If not, what required it?

3. Consider the following rule: To get into federal court you must go through a metal detector. Assume that in state court the rule is you don't. Under York, should the state rule apply in federal court in a diversity case?

4. Try to determine how Ragan, Woods, and Cohen should come out under York.

5. It seems pretty clear that in the Byrd case the state rule is outcome determinative. Why then is the federal rule used? Can the result be squared with York?