Case Citator › Crowell v. Benson

Crowell v. Benson

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
285 U.S. 22
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
1943–1972
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Crowell v. Benson has been criticized, as listed below. A district judge criticized its jurisdictional fact rule while applying it as binding precedent, and the Fifth Circuit later questioned its continuing validity in a footnote.
More on how this was screened

Neither court overruled it. All 43 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

43 later cases cite Crowell v. Benson; 43 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Crowell v. Benson?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The district court endorsed criticism of Crowell's majority rule but applied it because Supreme Court precedent bound the court.

    Tucker v. Norton · E.D. Pennsylvania · filed

    Under the authority of the Crowell case, therefore, it would appear that a trial de novo of these issues is required and that the motion to dismiss must be overruled. Defendant, however, challenges both the present validity of the decision in the Crowell case and its applicability to the case at bar. It is unnecessary to discuss at any length the relative merits of the majority and dissenting opinions in that case. I am in full accord with the dissenting opinion of Justice Brandéis, concurred in by Justices Stone and Roberts, for the reasons expressed therein and for the further reasons set forth in the numerous articles by legal writers1 and which are virtually unanimous in condemning the ruling of the majority. But unless and until the decision is overruled by the Supreme Court, it is controlling upon me.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Fifth Circuit questioned whether Crowell's jurisdictional fact doctrine remained valid, while addressing a contention that was not an issue on appeal.

    Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Shea · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Whether any vestige of validity remains of the extensively criticized Crowell doctrine is extremely doubtful. Suffice it to say, that although the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Crowell, it simply does not follow it.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Crowell v. Benson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace