Case Citator › Foster v. Neilson

Foster v. Neilson

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
27 U.S. 253
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
41 of 41
Citing cases (total)
41
Treatment dates
1833
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Foster v. Neilson was overruled in part on its reading of the treaty protecting Spanish land grants. The Supreme Court's later decision in United States v. Percheman examined the treaty's Spanish text and held that the treaty itself confirmed the grants.
More on how this was screened

Foster's broader rule distinguishing treaties that operate as domestic law from promises requiring legislation remains in use. All 41 flagged citations have been read. The confirmed treatment 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.

41 later cases cite Foster v. Neilson; 41 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 Foster v. Neilson?

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

  • After examining the Spanish text, the Supreme Court rejected Foster's reading of the treaty as only a promise to confirm land grants by later legislation.

    United States v. Percheman · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In the case of Foster v. Elam, ... this court considered these words as importing contract. The Spanish part of the treaty was not then brought to our view, and we then supposed that there was ho variance between them. We did not suppose that there was even a formal difference of expression in the same instrument, drawn up in the language of each party. Had this circumstance been known, we believe it would have produced the construction which we now give to the article.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Foster v. Neilson 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