Connection lost
Server error
WALKER v. ARMCO STEEL 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 case, the Supreme Court held that a state law requiring service of process to toll the statute of limitations applies over Federal Rule 3. Rule 3 only marks commencement for federal procedural purposes, not for tolling state limitations periods.
Legal Significance: This case clarified the Hanna v. Plumer analysis, establishing that a court must first determine if a Federal Rule’s scope is broad enough to control the issue before finding a “direct collision” with state law. It reaffirmed Ragan v. Merchants Transfer.
WALKER v. ARMCO STEEL 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
The petitioner, an Oklahoma resident, was injured by a nail manufactured by the respondent, a foreign corporation. He filed a products liability suit in federal district court in Oklahoma, based on diversity of citizenship. The complaint was filed on August 19, 1977, three days before the state’s two-year statute of limitations was set to expire. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, a civil action is “commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” However, service of process was not made on the respondent until December 1, 1977. An Oklahoma statute, Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 97, provided that for statute of limitations purposes, an action was not deemed “commenced” until the defendant was served with a summons. The statute included a 60-day grace period for service after filing, which the petitioner had exceeded. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the state statute of limitations. The petitioner contended that Rule 3 controlled. It was undisputed that the action would have been barred if brought in an Oklahoma state court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a federal diversity action, does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, which states an action commences upon filing, govern for the purpose of tolling a state statute of limitations, or does a state law requiring actual service of process to toll the statute control?
The Court held that the Oklahoma state law requiring service of process 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
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, does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, which states an action commences upon filing, govern for the purpose of tolling a state statute of limitations, or does a state law requiring actual service of process to toll the statute control?
Conclusion
This case refines the *Erie* analysis by establishing a crucial threshold inquiry: 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 v
Legal Rule
In a diversity action, state law service requirements that are an integral 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 began its analysis by distinguishing the case from *Hanna v. 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 re
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a diversity action, state law governing the tolling of a