Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. 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 carrier sued a shipper in federal court to collect unpaid fees required by federal law. The Supreme Court held that such a claim “arises under” federal law, establishing federal question jurisdiction, even if it resembles a simple contract dispute.
Legal Significance: Reaffirms that a claim based on a right or duty created by a federal statute, such as the Interstate Commerce Act, “arises under” federal law for jurisdictional purposes, regardless of whether the case also involves simple contract-like elements.
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. 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, Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., a common carrier regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), sued respondent, Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., in federal district court to collect $661.41 in unpaid motor freight charges. Thurston’s complaint alleged that its claim was based on the duties and obligations imposed by the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), which mandates that carriers collect, and shippers pay, the rates specified in tariffs filed with the ICC. The complaint asserted that the action arose under the ICA and that the court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which grants jurisdiction over civil actions arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, characterizing the suit as a “simple contract-collection action” that did not require the resolution of any federal legal proposition to determine what, if anything, was owed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a common carrier’s action to recover freight charges required by tariffs filed under the Interstate Commerce Act “arise under” federal law for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction?
Yes. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that a carrier’s suit 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 nu
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
Does a common carrier’s action to recover freight charges required by tariffs filed under the Interstate Commerce Act “arise under” federal law for the purpose of establishing federal question jurisdiction?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong affirmation that a claim whose source 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
Legal Rule
A suit brought by a common carrier to recover payment for services 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
Legal Analysis
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court summarily reversed the Ninth 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A common carrier’s lawsuit to collect unpaid freight charges based on