Connection lost
Server error
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York 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: A plaintiff sued in federal court after the state’s statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court held that the federal court must apply the state’s statute of limitations because it would determine the case’s outcome, preventing a different result than in state court.
Legal Significance: This case established the “outcome-determinative test” for applying state law in federal diversity cases under the Erie doctrine, extending its principles to rules, like statutes of limitations, that substantially affect the litigation’s result.
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York 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
Respondent York sued petitioner Guaranty Trust Co. in federal district court in New York, with jurisdiction based solely on diversity of citizenship. York alleged that Guaranty, as trustee for corporate notes, breached its fiduciary duties. The suit was filed after the applicable New York statute of limitations would have barred the claim had it been brought in a New York state court. Guaranty moved for summary judgment, arguing the state statute of limitations should apply. The district court granted the motion. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in an equity suit, a federal court is not bound by a state statute of limitations and may instead apply the more flexible federal doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a federal court in a diversity case must apply the state statute of limitations.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a federal action based solely on diversity of citizenship, must the court apply a state statute of limitations that would bar the claim in state court, even if the claim is equitable in nature?
Yes. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed. A 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
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 action based solely on diversity of citizenship, must the court apply a state statute of limitations that would bar the claim in state court, even if the claim is equitable in nature?
Conclusion
This decision significantly broadened the Erie doctrine by introducing the outcome-determinative test, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore
Legal Rule
In diversity jurisdiction cases, if a state law or rule would significantly 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 aut
Legal Analysis
Writing for the Court, Justice Frankfurter shifted the analysis under the Erie 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A federal court sitting in diversity must apply a state statute
