Case Citator › Mitchell v. Burlington

Mitchell v. Burlington

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
71 U.S. 270
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
6 of 6
Citing cases (total)
6
Treatment dates
1892
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Mitchell v. Burlington was overruled in part: all 6 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Brenham v. German American Bank held that later Supreme Court decisions overruled Mitchell on the particular issue whether an express municipal borrowing power authorizes negotiable bonds.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions applied or reported that treatment without independently acting on Mitchell, or did not mention it.

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.

6 later cases cite Mitchell v. Burlington; 6 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 Mitchell v. Burlington?

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 overruled Mitchell v. Burlington on the issue whether an express municipal borrowing power authorizes negotiable bonds.

    Brenham v. German American Bank · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    It. does not follow that, because the town of Monticello had the right to contract a loan, it had, therefore, the right to issue negotiable bonds and put them on the market as evidences of such loan. To borrow; money, and to give a bond or obligation therefor which may circulate in the market as a negotiable security, freed from any equities that may be set up by the maker of it, are, in their nature and in their legal effect, essentially different transactions. ... We, therefore, must regard the cases of Rogers v. Burlington and Mitchell v. Burlington, as overruled in the particular-referred to, by later cases in this court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mitchell v. Burlington 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