Case Citator › Calder v. Bull

Calder v. Bull

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
3 U.S. 386
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
131 of 131
Citing cases (total)
1,867
Treatment dates
1985
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. A New York trial court questioned Calder v. Bull's fourth ex post facto category in 1985. The Supreme Court later affirmed that the category continues to exist in Carmell v. Texas (2000).
More on how this was screened

All 131 flagged citations have been read; the historical questioning is listed below.

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.

1,867 later cases cite Calder v. Bull; 131 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 Calder v. Bull?

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 court called Calder's fourth ex post facto category dictum and questioned its continued vitality when rejecting a challenge to the repeal of an evidence corroboration requirement.

    People v. Spearman · Supreme Court of New York · filed

    In the early and oft-cited case of Calder v Bull (3 US 386, 390) the Supreme Court, in dicta, stated four types of changes which would be ex post facto. The fourth was: “Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.” If the pronouncement in that case could be said to precisely fix the parameters of acceptable legislation then the decision required in this case would be manifest. However, not only has that fourth prong been criticized by commentators (see, e.g., 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 7 [Tillers rev 1983]), but Supreme Court decisions subsequent to Colder cast doubt as to its continued vitality.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Calder v. Bull 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