Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 man sued a railroad in federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts must apply state substantive law, including common law, overturning a century of precedent that allowed them to create “federal general common law.”
Legal Significance: Established the “Erie Doctrine”: in diversity cases, federal courts must apply the substantive law of the forum state. The decision declared that there is no federal general common law, grounding this rule in constitutional principles of federalism.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Harry Tompkins, a Pennsylvania citizen, was walking along a railroad right-of-way in Pennsylvania when he was struck and injured by a passing train owned by Erie Railroad Co., a New York corporation. Tompkins filed a negligence suit against Erie in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction. At trial, the central legal dispute was the applicable standard of care. Erie argued that under Pennsylvania common law, Tompkins was a trespasser to whom the railroad owed only a duty to refrain from wanton or willful misconduct, which would preclude recovery. Tompkins contended that the matter was one of “general law,” and under the prevailing federal common law established by Swift v. Tyson, the railroad owed him a duty of ordinary care. The trial court applied the general law standard, and the jury returned a verdict for Tompkins. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that federal courts were not bound by state common law on questions of general law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider this long-standing doctrine.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a diversity jurisdiction case, must a federal court apply the substantive common law of the state where the events occurred, or is it free to apply its own “federal general common law”?
Yes. The Court reversed the lower court’s judgment, holding 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
In a diversity jurisdiction case, must a federal court apply the substantive common law of the state where the events occurred, or is it free to apply its own “federal general common law”?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the Erie Doctrine, fundamentally reallocating power between federal 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 exercitat
Legal Rule
Except in matters governed by the U.S. Constitution or acts of Congress, 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 commod
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Brandeis dismantled the doctrine of *Swift 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 of
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Overturns the 96-year-old precedent of Swift v. Tyson. - Holding: In