a diversity case. The principles of Erie, however, cannot be so easily bypassed. B. The Erie Doctrine and Bankruptcy While the Erie case was a diversity case and is commonly relied on in diversity cases, the issue it addresses — application of state law versus federal law — frequently arises in bankruptcy cases. See Thomas E. Plank, The Erie Doctrine and Bankruptcy, 79 Notre Dame L.Rev. 633 (Feb.2004). For example, in the seminal case of Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979), the Supreme Court recognized that, in bankruptcy cases, property interests are created and defined by state law “unless some federal interest requires a different result.” Id. at 55, 99 S.Ct. 914; see also In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp., 696 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The Butner court explained that the
holding that shepard did not affect the continuing validity of almendareztorres recognizing the continuing authority of rauscher recognizing the continuing validity of weatherford on this point recognizing the continuing validity of negligence as a separate basis for employer liability in action in which employee alleged supervisor harassment recognizing continuing validity of the butner decision