Case Citator › Anderson v. Dunn

Anderson v. Dunn

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
19 U.S. 204
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
9 of 9
Citing cases (total)
9
Treatment dates
1881
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Anderson v. Dunn was limited: all 9 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Kilbourn v. Thompson held that Anderson did not make a House of Representatives contempt finding conclusive when the House lacked authority to act.
More on how this was screened

The Constitution Annotated lists Anderson as overruled by Kilbourn, but Kilbourn left Anderson's recognition of the House's implied contempt power intact. The other opinions applied Anderson's discussion of contempt and inherent judicial power, reported Kilbourn's reasoning, or did not mention Anderson.

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.

9 later cases cite Anderson v. Dunn; 9 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 Anderson v. Dunn?

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

Limited

  • The Supreme Court limited Anderson v. Dunn by holding that a House of Representatives contempt finding and commitment warrant were not conclusive when the House lacked authority to act.

    Kilbourn v. Thompson · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We must, therefore, hold, notwithstanding what is said in the case of Anderson v. Dunn, that the resolution of the House of Representatives finding Eilbourn guilty of contempt, and the warrant of its speaker for his commitment to prison, are not conclusive in this case, and in fact are no justification, be- ■ cause, as the whole plea shows, the House was without authority in the matter.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Anderson v. Dunn 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