From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
United States Supreme Court
511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA) imposed new types of liability on employers engaging in discrimination. The CRA did not specify whether it would apply retroactively to conduct or litigation that commenced before its enactment. The United States Supreme Court took up the case to decide the issue of whether the CRA applied to cases that were not finally adjudicated as of the CRA’s effective date.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.