Case Citator › Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

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

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
577 U.S. 153
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
285 of 285
Citing cases (total)
967

Status

Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez remains good law: all 285 flagged citations have been read, and none adversely treated the decision. The reviewed opinions applied Campbell-Ewald's rule that an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a plaintiff's claim, addressed questions the decision expressly left open, or reported Campbell-Ewald as the authority that abrogated older circuit precedent.
More on how this was screened

Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC rejected an argument that Campbell-Ewald abrogated Second Circuit precedent governing deposited funds, and Childs v. San Diego Family Housing LLC rejected an argument that it overruled Ninth Circuit government-contractor-immunity precedent. Other nearby adverse language concerned unrelated cases, statutes, trial rulings, or appellate issues rather than Campbell-Ewald itself. Several courts decided questions the opinion expressly left open, and a duplicate State v. Cupp opinion contained no Campbell-Ewald citation in its full text.

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.

967 later cases cite Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez; 285 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 Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez?

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 285 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 Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez 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