Connection lost
Server error
GASPERINI v. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC. 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 case, the Supreme Court held that a federal trial court must apply New York’s statutory standard for reviewing jury verdicts for excessiveness, with appellate review limited to abuse of discretion, accommodating Erie principles and the Seventh Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case refines the Erie doctrine, holding that state statutory standards for reviewing jury damage awards are substantive and must be applied by federal trial courts, while harmonizing this with the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause through a specific appellate review standard.
GASPERINI v. CENTER FOR HUMANITIES, INC. 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
Petitioner Gasperini, a journalist, sued respondent Center for Humanities, Inc. (Center) in federal district court, invoking diversity jurisdiction, for losing 300 original photographic transparencies. New York substantive law governed the claims. A jury awarded Gasperini $450,000. The Center moved for a new trial, arguing, inter alia, that the verdict was excessive. The District Court denied the motion without comment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 5501(c)—which directs New York appellate courts to determine if an award “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation”—vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial unless Gasperini agreed to a remittitur of $100,000. CPLR § 5501(c) was intended by the New York legislature to be a more stringent standard than the traditional “shocks the conscience” test previously used. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the compatibility of CPLR § 5501(c) with federal practice in diversity cases, particularly in light of the Seventh Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a federal diversity action, must the court apply a state law standard for reviewing the excessiveness of a jury’s verdict, and if so, how is such application reconciled with the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause and the allocation of functions between federal trial and appellate courts?
Yes, New York’s “deviates materially” standard (CPLR § 5501(c)) for reviewing jury 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 proi
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 federal diversity action, must the court apply a state law standard for reviewing the excessiveness of a jury’s verdict, and if so, how is such application reconciled with the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause and the allocation of functions between federal trial and appellate courts?
Conclusion
Gasperini establishes that federal district courts in diversity cases must apply state 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
Legal Rule
In a diversity case, a federal district court must apply a state 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
Legal Analysis
The Court first determined that CPLR § 5501(c) is substantive under the 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a diversity case, a federal district court must apply the