Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 U.S. 114 - C G Blake and Rogers Brown & Company

C G Blake and Rogers Brown & Company’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1987

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

101899190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · Blake v. McClung · Stanley v. Schwalby · In re Potts · M'Clung v. Silliman

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a judicial tribunal to decide a matter within its discretion in a particular way, or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction, nor be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. And it only lies, as a general rule, where there is no other adequate remedy. As respects the federal courts, it is well settled that where the mandate leaves nothing to the judgment or discretion of the court below, and that court mistakes or misconstrues the decree 6r judgment of this court and does not give full effect to the mandate, its action may be controlled, either upon a new appeal or writ of error if involving a sufficient amount, or by writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of this court. City Bank of Ft. Worth v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512 [ 14 Sup. Ct. 675 , 38 L. Ed. 534 ]; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247 [ 16 Sup. Ct. 291 , 40 L. Ed. 414 ]; In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263 [ 17 Sup. Ct. 520 , 41 L. Ed. 994 ].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.