Hosey v. Kennamer’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.2d 64 · 1927
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Kimberlin v. Commission to Five Civilized Tribes · Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Reeves · Brictson Mfg. Co. v. Munger · Minnesota Moline Plow Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. · United States ex rel. Harless v. Judges of United States Court of Appeals of Indian Territory
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * When a question has been decided by the officer or person to whose judgment or discretion the law has intrusted its determination, the writ of mandamus may not issue to review or reverse that decision or to compel another. It may issue to command judicial officers to hear and to decide a question within their jurisdiction, but courts have no power by writ of mandamus to direct such officers how they shall decide such a question, or in whose favor they shall render their judgment, because such action would result in the substitution of the judgment and opinion of the commanding court for that of the judicial officer or officers to whose judgment and discretion the law intrusted the decision of the issue. For the same reason it cannot be invoked to compel a court or a judicial officer to reverse a decision already rendered, to correct an erroneous conclusion, or to render another decision. (Authorities cited).””
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.