Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 Md. 446 - Pressman v. Elgin

Pressman v. Elgin’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Kirkwood v. Provident Savings Bank (1954), Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Ass'n v. Public Service Commission (2000)

47 state decisions

120194719501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mississippi v. Johnson · Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall et al. · Smith v. Higinbothom · Pittman v. Housing Authority · Buchholtz v. Hill

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Mandamus is a remedy which comes down to us from the past when the Judges of the Court of the King’s Bench issued the writ or not as they saw fit. According to the theory of the common law, the King was the fountain of justice, and where the laws did not afford a remedy and enable the individual to obtain his right by the regular forms of judicial proceedings, the prerogative powers of the sovereign were sought to supplement . the ordinary judicial powers of the Court. Thus mandamus, like habeas corpus, became known as a prerogative writ because it was issued only by exercise of the extraordinary power of the Crown on proper cause shown. Today, however, the theory that mandamus is a prerogative writ no longer has force in America. In Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343 , 23 L. Ed. 428, 432 , the United States Supreme Court observed that a private citizen may apply for mandamus in his own name without the intervention of any public official to enforce a public duty not owing to the government as such.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]rdinarily an attorney is not a party to a suit in which he merely acts in a professional capacity in representing a litigant,”
    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.