Connection lost
Server error
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In a diversity-based stockholder suit, a federal court must apply a state law requiring plaintiffs to post security for litigation costs. The Court found the law substantive under the Erie doctrine and the order denying security was immediately appealable under the new collateral order doctrine.
Legal Significance: This case established the collateral order doctrine, permitting immediate appeal of certain interlocutory orders. It also clarified the Erie doctrine, holding that state laws creating new liabilities that condition the right to sue are substantive and must be applied by federal courts in diversity cases.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A plaintiff filed a stockholder’s derivative action in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, with jurisdiction based solely on diversity of citizenship. The suit alleged that corporate managers had diverted over $100 million. The plaintiff owned approximately 0.0125% of the corporation’s stock, with a market value under $9,000. After the suit was filed, New Jersey enacted a statute requiring plaintiffs in derivative suits who held less than 5% of the company’s stock (or stock valued at less than $50,000) to post security for the defendants’ reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees. The corporate defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to post a $125,000 bond pursuant to this statute. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that the state law was procedural and therefore inapplicable in federal court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute must be applied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address both the appealability of the District Court’s order and the applicability of the state statute under the Erie doctrine.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a stockholder’s derivative action based on diversity jurisdiction, is a state law requiring plaintiffs with small holdings to post security for litigation costs a substantive rule that must be applied by a federal court under the Erie doctrine?
Yes. The New Jersey statute is a substantive rule that federal courts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In a stockholder’s derivative action based on diversity jurisdiction, is a state law requiring plaintiffs with small holdings to post security for litigation costs a substantive rule that must be applied by a federal court under the Erie doctrine?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the collateral order doctrine as an exception to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam
Legal Rule
A state law that creates a new liability and conditions the right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
Legal Analysis
The Court first addressed the threshold jurisdictional question of appealability. It held Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state statute requiring plaintiffs in stockholder derivative suits to post