Case Citator › Kring v. Missouri

Kring v. Missouri

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

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
107 U.S. 221
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
81 of 81
Citing cases (total)
472
Treatment dates
1990
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Kring v. Missouri has been overruled: all 81 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Collins v. Youngblood rejected Kring’s expansion of the Ex Post Facto Clause beyond the Calder v. Bull categories and expressly overruled the decision.
More on how this was screened

Earlier opinions followed or distinguished Kring; later opinions merely reported Collins’s treatment, cited unaffected propositions, or used nearby adverse language about other laws and authorities.

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.

472 later cases cite Kring v. Missouri; 81 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 Kring v. Missouri?

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

  • The Supreme Court overruled Kring’s holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause reaches procedural changes merely because they alter a defendant’s situation to his disadvantage.

    Collins v. Youngblood · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The holding in Kring can only be justified if the Ex Post Facto Clause is thought to include not merely the Calder categories, but any change which “alters the situation of a party to his disadvantage.” We think such a reading of the Clause departs from the meaning of the Clause as it was understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and is not supported by later cases. We accordingly overrule Kring.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Kring v. Missouri 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