Gaines v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 10 district · 26 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * An officer to whom public duties are confided by law is not subject to the control of the courts in the exercise of the judgment and discretion whieh the law reposes in him as a part of his official functions. Certain powers and duties are confided to those officers, and to them alone, and however the courts may, in ascertaining the rights of parties in suits properly before them, pass upon the legality of their acts, after the matter has once passed beyond their control, there exists no power in the courts, by any of its processes, to act upon the officer so as to interfere with the exercise of that judgment while the matter is properly before him for action. The reason for this is that the law reposes this discretion in him for that occasion, and not in the courts. The doetrine, therefore, is as applicable to the writ of injunction as it is to the writ of mandamus. In the one case the officer is required to abandon his right to exercise his personal judgment, and to substitute that of the court, by performing the act as it commands. In the other he is forbidden to do the act which hiS judgment and discretion tell him should be done. There can be no difference in the principle which forbids interference with the duties of these officers, whether it be by writ of mandamus or injunction.” (Italics ours.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Enterprise Sav. Ass'n v. Zumstein · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tax Commission

2. ““The court cannot entertain an appeal from the decision of one of the secretaries, nor revise his judgment in any case where the law authorizes him to exercise judgment or discretion, nor can it, by mandamus, act directly upon an officer, or guide or control Ills judgment or discretion in a matter committed to Ms care in the ordinary exercise of his official duties. Hie interference of the court with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive department would be productive of nothing lmt mischief. We are quite satisfied that no such power was ever intended to be given to them.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dudley v. James · State ex rel. Marrero v. Ehret

3. ““The action of the officers of the land department with which we are asked to interfere in this case is clearly not of this character. The validity of plaintiff’s entry, which is involved in their decision, is a question which requires the careful consideration and construction of more than one act of congress. It has been for a long time before the department, and has received the attention of successive secretaries of the interior, and has been found so difficult as to justify those officers in requiring the opinion of the attorney general. It is far from being a ministerial act under any definition given by this court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lane v. Anderson