About: Calder v. Bull

An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law. First, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that have at least one of four effects: The decision restates this categorization later as laws "that create, or aggregate, the crime; or encrease [sic] the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction" [emphasis in the original]. Third, the Supreme Court said that:

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law. First, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that have at least one of four effects: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. The decision restates this categorization later as laws "that create, or aggregate, the crime; or encrease [sic] the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction" [emphasis in the original]. Second, the Supreme Court lacked the authority to nullify state laws that violate that state's constitution: this court has no jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state Legislature, contrary to the Constitution of such state is void. Third, the Supreme Court said that: no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. [emphasis in the original] Fourth, the Supreme Court decided that this specific act of the Connecticut legislature, and any other state legislative act, is not a violation of the ex post facto clause if there is no fact done by Bull and wife, Plaintiff's in Error, that is in any manner affected by the law or resolution of Connecticut: It does not concern, or relate to, any act done by them. [emphasis in the original] (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 7422720 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 12830 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1066743321 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-02-08 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1798 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Calder v. Bull, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Paterson (en)
  • Iredell (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-08-08 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1798 (xsd:integer)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:fullname
  • Calder et Wife v. Bull et Wife (en)
dbp:googlescholar
dbp:holding
  • The ex post facto clause applies to criminal, not civil, cases. (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Ellsworth, Wilson, Cushing (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:litigants
  • Calder v. Bull (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • Chase (en)
dbp:openjurist
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 3 (xsd:integer)
dbp:prior
  • In error from the State of Connecticut (en)
dbp:uspage
  • 386 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 3 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law. First, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that have at least one of four effects: The decision restates this categorization later as laws "that create, or aggregate, the crime; or encrease [sic] the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction" [emphasis in the original]. Third, the Supreme Court said that: (en)
rdfs:label
  • Calder v. Bull (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Calder et Wife v. Bull et Wife (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License