Connection lost
Server error
JONES v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. 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 Court held that the federal four-year “catch-all” statute of limitations applies to claims made possible by post-1990 amendments to pre-existing federal statutes, resolving a circuit split over whether the statute applied only to entirely new laws.
Legal Significance: This case defines when a claim “arises under” a new Act for purposes of the federal catch-all statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 1658), promoting uniformity and reducing federal courts’ reliance on borrowing inconsistent state statutes of limitations.
JONES v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. 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
Petitioners, African-American former employees, sued their employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging post-contract formation discrimination, including hostile work environment and wrongful termination. These claims were filed more than two years after they accrued, which would bar them under the borrowed Illinois two-year personal injury statute of limitations. However, the specific causes of action for post-formation conduct were only made possible by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended § 1981 to overrule the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union. Congress had previously enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1658, a four-year “catch-all” statute of limitations for civil actions “arising under an Act of Congress enacted after” December 1, 1990. The core dispute was whether petitioners’ claims, enabled by the 1991 amendment to a pre-existing statute, “arose under” the 1991 Act for purposes of § 1658, thereby triggering the four-year federal limitations period instead of the borrowed two-year state period.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the four-year federal catch-all statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 apply to a cause of action that is made possible by an amendment to a pre-existing federal statute enacted after December 1, 1990?
Yes. The Court held that the petitioners’ claims for hostile work environment 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 volup
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 four-year federal catch-all statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 apply to a cause of action that is made possible by an amendment to a pre-existing federal statute enacted after December 1, 1990?
Conclusion
The decision provides a clear standard for applying the federal catch-all statute 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 labor
Legal Rule
A cause of action "arises under an Act of Congress enacted" after 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
Legal Analysis
The Court, through Justice Stevens, began by acknowledging the ambiguity of 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 es
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A claim “arises under an Act of Congress enacted” after Dec.