Case Citator › Osborn v. Bank of United States

Osborn v. Bank of United States

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
22 U.S. 738
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
51 of 51
Citing cases (total)
51
Treatment dates
1921–1996
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Osborn v. Bank of United States is overruled in part. The Supreme Court abandoned its suggestion that a State must be named as a defendant for immunity to apply.
More on how this was screened

A later statute also curtailed federal jurisdiction based solely on corporate incorporation. All 51 flagged citations have been read; the two confirmed treatments are 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.

51 later cases cite Osborn v. Bank of United States; 51 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 Osborn v. Bank of United States?

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 abandoned Osborn's suggestion that State immunity turns on whether the State is named as a defendant.

    Ex parte State of New York, No. 1 · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    As to what is to be deemed a suit against a State, the early suggestion that the inhibition might be confined to those in which the State was a párty to the record (Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 846, 850, 857) has long since been abandoned, and it is now established that the question is to be determined not by the mere names of the titular parties but by the essential nature and. effect of the proceeding, as it appears from the entire record.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1349 partially displaced Osborn's federal-charter basis for federal jurisdiction.

    Hollus v. Amtrak Northeast Corridor · D.N.J. · filed

    Section 1349 currently provides: “The district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress, unless the United States is the owner of more than one-half its capital stock.” Thus, Section 1349 has partially overruled Osborn and, particularly, The Pacific Railroad Removal Cases.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Osborn v. Bank of United States 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