Case Citator › Bell v. Burson

Bell v. Burson

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

Questioned by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
402 U.S. 535
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
1974
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. Bell v. Burson is questioned among the reviewed cases: all 42 flagged citations have been read, with one confirmed treatment listed below. The Ninth Circuit suggested that a later Supreme Court decision may have cast doubt on the presumption favoring notice and a hearing before state action, while still requiring advance process in the case before it.
More on how this was screened

The other citing opinions applied Bell, discussed other decisions, or contained arguments and dissents the court did not adopt.

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.

42 later cases cite Bell v. Burson; 42 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 Bell v. Burson?

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

Questioned

  • The Ninth Circuit suggested that Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. may have cast doubt on the presumption favoring advance notice and a hearing in cases such as Bell.

    Geneva Towers Tenants Organization v. Federated Mortgage Investors · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Although Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974), has perhaps cast doubt on the continued vitality of the “presumption” in cases like Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.Ct. 1586 (1971) and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. at 378-379, 91 S.Ct. 780, in favor of pre-action notice and opportunity for hearing,17 the balancing process in this case leads nonetheless to the pre-deprivation result.18
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bell v. Burson 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