Connection lost
Server error
Calder v. Bull Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Connecticut law granted a new trial in a will dispute after the appeal period expired. The Supreme Court held the law was not an unconstitutional “ex post facto” law, defining that term as applying only to retrospective criminal laws, not civil matters affecting property rights.
Legal Significance: This case established the foundational precedent that the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws applies exclusively to criminal statutes, not to retrospective civil laws. It also features a seminal debate on judicial review based on natural law versus positive law.
Calder v. Bull Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A Connecticut probate court refused to approve a will, which meant the decedent’s property would pass via intestate succession to Calder’s wife. The beneficiaries under the will, Bull and his wife, failed to appeal this decision within the 18-month statutory period. After the appeal period closed, the Connecticut legislature passed a new law that set aside the probate court’s decree and granted the Bulls a new hearing. On rehearing, the will was approved, and this decision was affirmed by Connecticut’s highest court. The Calders, whose expected inheritance was thereby divested, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that the Connecticut law was an unconstitutional ex post facto law under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution because it retroactively deprived them of a vested right to the property.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on states passing “any ex post facto Law” apply to a retrospective civil statute that divests a vested property right, or is it limited exclusively to criminal statutes?
No. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Connecticut court, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on states passing “any ex post facto Law” apply to a retrospective civil statute that divests a vested property right, or is it limited exclusively to criminal statutes?
Conclusion
Calder v. Bull definitively limited the scope of the Ex Post Facto Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
Legal Rule
The Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
Legal Analysis
The Justices, writing seriatim, agreed that the Connecticut law was constitutional. Justice Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: The Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause (Art. I, § 10)