Ackermann v. Vordenbaum
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Later courts continue to apply its rule that an order denying summary judgment generally cannot be reviewed after a final judgment, apart from the stated exception for opposing summary judgment motions when one is granted. Source notes: The texts assigned to citing opinions 5220017, 1717982, 2889054, and 895143 contain no attributable Ackermann citation. Opinion 2889054 appends an unrelated later opinion. No treatment was attributed to these opinions. The text assigned to Vincen v. Lazarus (1207594) also does not cite Ackermann; it was read as a false positive citation.
70 later cases cite Ackermann v. Vordenbaum; 70 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 Ackermann v. Vordenbaum?
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.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 70 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ackermann v. Vordenbaum 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