TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Burtis

Ex Parte Burtis, 103 U.S. 238 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 28, 1881
Judges
Waite
Citations
103 U.S. 23826 L. Ed. 3921880 U.S. LEXIS 2109
Headnotes
This court cannot, by mandamus, compel an inferior court to reverse its decision made in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction.
Summary
Petition for a writ of mandamus.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus requiring the district, judge for the eastern district of New York to compel one Eliza M. Shepherd to obey the command of a subpoena duces tecum, and produce before a special examiner certain iron patterns of an old fire-place heater, that testimony might be taken respecting them, to be certified and used on the hearing of an equity cause pending in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. From the petition it appears that the judge has' already .acted on the idéntical showing made to us, and for reasons assigned in writing denied a motion for an attachment against the person named for refusing to obey the subpoena.

A writ of mandamus may be used to compel an inferior tribunal to act on a matter within its jurisdiction, but not to control its discretion while acting (Ex parte Railway Company, 101 U. S. 711 ), nor reverse its decisions when made.

Ex parte Elippin, 94 id. 348. Both these rules are elementary, and are fatal to this application. .The district judge took jurisdiction of the matter, as it was his duty to do, heard the parties, and decided adversely, to the claim of the petitioner. In this he may have done wrong, and the reasons he has assigned may not be such as will bear the test of judicial criticism ; but we cannot, by mandamus, compel him to undo what he has thus done in the exercise of his legitimate jurisdiction. He was asked to punish a person for contempt in disobeying the process of the court. He decided not to do so. This action of his is beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus.

Petition denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 11889–1890: 11893–1894: 21899–1900: 31901–1902: 11905–1906: 11911–1912: 11913–1914: 11925–1926: 11929–1930: 11943–1944: 11955–1956: 11969–1970: 12015–2016: 12021–2022: 118852026peak 1899 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Hawkins147 U.S. 486 (1893)
  2. Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.145 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1944)
  3. Woolley v. Wight238 P. 1114 (Utah 1925)
  4. Johnston v. Marsh227 F.2d 528 (3d Cir. 1955)
  5. Ex Parte American Steel Barrel Co.230 U.S. 35 (1913)
  6. Ex Parte Morgan114 U.S. 174 (1885)

Most recent

  1. Kramer v. WilkieNo. 20-2112 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2021)
  2. McChesky v. McDonald635 F. App'x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
  3. Brant v. McSoley260 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1970)
  4. Johnston v. Marsh227 F.2d 528 (3d Cir. 1955)
  5. Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.145 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1944)
  6. Andrus v. Burlington Township School Directors13 Pa. D. & C. 768 (1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Ry. Co., 101 U.S. 711 (1880) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list