The Walker v. Armco Steel Corp case in 1979 revolved around the issue of whether federal or state law should govern when a lawsuit is officially commenced for purposes of tolling a statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Walker, filed his complaint against Armco Steel Corporation under Oklahoma's pre-judgment procedure but did not immediately serve the summons to the defendant as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations expired. The Supreme Court held that since this was a diversity case and not one arising under federal law, it was more appropriate to apply state rather than federal rules regarding commencement procedures and statutes of limitation. Therefore, because service had not been made before expiration according to Oklahoma law, Walker's claim was time-barred due to lapse in statutory period for filing suit.

In the dissenting opinion for Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices White and Marshall, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argued that a lawsuit commences upon filing, not service. The dissent pointed out that this interpretation had been consistently applied in lower courts and was supported by legal scholars. Furthermore, they contended that this approach better served the purpose of statutes of limitations - to prevent stale claims - as it provided certainty about when a claim was initiated. By contrast, tying commencement to service could lead to unnecessary disputes about whether or when service occurred properly or timely enough to avoid expiration of statute limitations period.