Ex Parte Nathaniel Crane and Samuel Kelly v. Nathaniel Crane’s Empirical Analysis
30 U.S. 190 · 1831
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Ex parte Republic of Peru (1943), Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. (1966)
29 federal appellate · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 The United States v. Judge Peters · M'Clung v. Silliman · Durousseau v. United States · Alexander Shirras John Black William Milligan William Blacklock Joseph Verrees v. John Caig Robert Mitchel
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'issues to the judges of any inferior court, commanding them to do justice, according to the powers of their office, whenever the same is delayed.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Upon 'a careful consideration of the law, we are of the opinion that this court has the jurisdiction and power to issue a writ of mandamus where the same is a proper proceeding in a criminal case. As we view it, the proceeding in this ease seeks only to invoke the exercise of the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this court. This is a court of special jurisdiction, limited in the exercise of its powers exclusively to criminal cases, and it is undoubtedly true that, except in cases where under the law this court has original jurisdiction, all exercise of power in other cases must be in virtue of its appellate jurisdiction, and the writ of mandamus can be issued only in the exercise or in aid of its appellate authority. A mandamus to an inferior court is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. The term ‘appellate’, in the constitutional phrase ‘a Criminal Court of Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases,’ is not used in a restricted sense, but in its broadest sense, as embracing the power and jurisdiction to review and correct the proceedings of inferior courts in criminal cases, brought before it for determination, in the manner • provided by law. The ' statute prescribes the procedure by which such proceedings shall be brought before this .court, and among the other modes prescribed the writ of mandamus may be a proper proceeding. Snyder’s St. para. 2016, 6224. The Supreme Court of the United States, with a few enumerated exceptions, has the only a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Supreme Court shall have power to issue * * * writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, where a State, or an embassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul is a party.””
2 later decisions 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.