Connection lost
Server error
HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES 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: The Supreme Court held that the 120-day service period in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 supersedes the conflicting “forthwith” service requirement in the Suits in Admiralty Act, classifying the timing of service as a non-jurisdictional procedural matter.
Legal Significance: Establishes that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing case-processing matters, like the timing of service, supersede conflicting federal statutes under the Rules Enabling Act, even in suits against the United States involving sovereign immunity.
HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES 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 Lloyd Henderson, a merchant mariner, filed a personal injury suit against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA). The SAA contains a two-year statute of limitations for filing suit and a provision in § 742 requiring that the plaintiff “shall forthwith serve a copy of his libel” on the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General. Henderson filed his complaint well within the limitations period. However, due to a series of administrative errors by the court clerk in providing a properly sealed summons, Henderson did not achieve personal service on the U.S. Attorney until 148 days after filing the complaint. At the time, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j) provided a 120-day period for service, which the district court could extend for good cause. The United States moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Henderson’s failure to serve process “forthwith” violated a condition of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, which could not be superseded by a procedural rule. The District Court and Court of Appeals agreed, dismissing the complaint.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the 120-day period for service of process provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 supersede the conflicting requirement in the Suits in Admiralty Act that service be made “forthwith”?
Yes. The Court held that the service timing provision of Federal Rule 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
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
Does the 120-day period for service of process provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 supersede the conflicting requirement in the Suits in Admiralty Act that service be made “forthwith”?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the power of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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
Legal Rule
Under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b), a Federal Rule 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
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 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 ma
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The 120-day period for service in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure