InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.

The Court held that federal courts sitting in diversity should begin the running of the statute of limitations for a claim according to state law instead of according to the federal rules of civil procedure.

337 U.S. 530 · No. 522 · 1948 term · Vinson Court

Decided Jun 20, 1949 · argued Apr 20, 1949

Federalism · Miscellaneous federalism

Majority opinion: William Douglas

The voteMajorityDissent

8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent

1 dissent (8–1)

Affirmed. Ragan lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Ragan was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530 (1949), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal courts sitting in diversity should begin the running of the statute of limitations for a claim according to state law instead of according to the federal rules of civil procedure. The court reasoned that a claim could not be given longer life in federal court than it would have had in a state court while being consistent with the holding in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1948 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianRutledgeDouglasBlackMurphyFrankfurterReedVinsonBurtonR. Jackson

Majority(8)

Dissent(1)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
RaganPhysically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee
Respondent
Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.Trucking company, or motor carrier
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Decided by
Diversity jurisdiction; Federal common law
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 20, 1949DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: affirmed. Ragan lost.
  2. Apr 20, 1949ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit: reversed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Kansas U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

22 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous federalism, newest first.

  1. Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety142 S. Ct. 2455Jun 29, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2455Federalism5–45–4 band

  2. U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Ray Thornton et al.Landmark · Federalism514 U.S. 779May 22, 1995 · 514 U.S. 779Federalism5–45–4 band

  3. United States, et al. v. Texas et al.507 U.S. 529Apr 5, 1993 · 507 U.S. 529Federalism8–18–1 band
  4. Rudy Perpich, Governor of Minnesota, et al. v. Department of Defense, et al.496 U.S. 334Jun 11, 1990 · 496 U.S. 334Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  5. West Virginia v. United States479 U.S. 305Jan 13, 1987 · 479 U.S. 305Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  6. Bennett, Secretary of Education v. Kentucky Department of Education470 U.S. 656Mar 19, 1985 · 470 U.S. 656Federalism8–0Unanimous band
  7. Bennett, Secretary of Education v. New Jersey470 U.S. 632Mar 19, 1985 · 470 U.S. 632Federalism6–27–2 band
  8. Bell, Secretary of Education v. New Jersey et al.461 U.S. 773May 31, 1983 · 461 U.S. 773Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  9. Watt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Alaska451 U.S. 259Apr 21, 1981 · 451 U.S. 259Federalism6–36–3 band
  10. Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.429 U.S. 363Jan 12, 1977 · 429 U.S. 363Federalism6–36–3 band
  11. Cousins et al. v. Wigoda et al.419 U.S. 477Jan 15, 1975 · 419 U.S. 477Federalism8–18–1 band
  12. Bonelli Cattle Co. et al. v. Arizona et al.414 U.S. 313Dec 17, 1973 · 414 U.S. 313Federalism7–18–1 band
  13. United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., Inc., et al.412 U.S. 580Jun 18, 1973 · 412 U.S. 580Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  14. Zschernig et al. v. Miller, Administrator, et al.389 U.S. 429Jan 15, 1968 · 389 U.S. 429Federalism7–18–1 band

  15. First National Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co.385 U.S. 252Dec 12, 1966 · 385 U.S. 252Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  16. United States v. Yazell382 U.S. 341Jan 17, 1966 · 382 U.S. 341Federalism6–36–3 band
  17. Corbett, Guardian v. Stergios, aka Steryiakis381 U.S. 124May 3, 1965 · 381 U.S. 124Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  18. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. Parnell352 U.S. 29Nov 13, 1956 · 352 U.S. 29Federalism7–27–2 band
  19. Carroll et al. v. Lanza, Doing Business As Lake Charles Electric Co.349 U.S. 408Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 408Federalism6–36–3 band
  20. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stude et al.346 U.S. 574Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 574Federalism7–27–2 band
  21. Cohen, Executrix, et al. v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. et al.337 U.S. 541Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 541Federalism6–36–3 band
  22. Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.337 U.S. 535Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 535Federalism6–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.