# Holmberg v. Armbrecht

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 25, 1946 · 327 U.S. 392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419777

## Case

- **Full name:** HOLMBERG Et Al. v. ARMBRECHT Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 25, 1946
- **Citations:** 327 U.S. 392; 162 A.L.R. 719; 66 S. Ct. 582; 90 L. Ed. 743; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2734
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rutledge
- **Judges:** Frankfurter, Rutledge, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 1,363 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419777

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "where a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in ignorance of it without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, though there be no special circumstances or efforts …
- holding that an issue not raised before the IJ or ruled on by the IJ was not properly before the BIA
- noting that fraudulent concealment requires the claimant be misled “without any fault or want of diligence”
- holding that while state law determines limitations period when no federal limitations period is provided, federal law determines date on which limitations period begins to run
- noting that the court must obey Congress’s mandate in prescribing a statute of limitations

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Rutledge,
concurring.
I agree with the result and with the opinion,'reserving however any intimation, explicit or implied, as to the full scope to which the doctrine of Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 , may be applied in diversity cases. Many of the considerations now stated by the Court for refusing to extend that doctrine to cases concerning federally created rights, relating to the flexibility of remedies in equity either to cut down or to extend the state statutory period of limitations, seemed to me to be applicable whenever a federal court might be asked to extend the aid of its equity arm, whether in its diversity jurisdiction or other. The ruling in the York case however may be accepted generally for diversity cases and, moreover, rejected for extension to cases of this sort, without indicating that there may not be some cases even of diversity jurisdiction to which federal courts may not be required to apply it. With this reservation I join in the Court’s action.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419777. Public record. Not legal advice.