Case Citator › Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association

Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association

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

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
549 F.2d 884
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
1980–2012
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association was overruled in part on how courts handle the Sherman Act's interstate commerce element. In Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895 (3d Cir. 1987), the Third Circuit said that McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. overruled any contrary suggestion in Mortensen.
More on how this was screened

The separate Rule 12(b)(1) distinction between facial and factual jurisdictional challenges continues to be applied. A later Third Circuit decision also confined Mortensen's lighter proof standard when the Government bears the burden. Both treatments are listed below; all 28 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.

28 later cases cite Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association; 28 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 Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court treated the Sherman Act's interstate commerce nexus as part of the cause of action, superseding Mortensen's contrary suggestion that a court could decide that element as a factual jurisdictional challenge.

    McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    This rule applies with no less force to a Sherman Act claim, where one of the requisites of a cause of action is the existence of a demonstrable nexus between the defendants’ activity and interstate commerce.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Third Circuit declined to apply Mortensen's lighter jurisdictional proof standard when the Government bore the burden of proving an exception to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    S.R.P. ex rel. Abunabba v. United States · Third Circuit · filed

    Recognizing that Rule 12(b)(1) does not provide plaintiffs the procedural safeguards of Rule 12(b)(6), such as assuming the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations, we have articulated a relaxed standard of proof for the jurisdictional question where jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits. ... See Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. ... We have never directly addressed the role of this standard where, as here, the burden of proving the relevant jurisdictional facts is on the defendant. ... Accordingly, because the Government bears the burden of proving the discretionary function exception, the “less in the way of jurisdictional proof” standard does not apply.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mortensen v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association 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