THE UNITED STATES VERSUS JUDGE LAWRENCE
THE UNITED STATES VERSUS JUDGE LAWRENCE
3 Dall. 42
Supreme Court of the United States (1795)
Caution
Also reported at: 1 L. Ed. 502 · SCDB 1795-004 · 1795 U.S. LEXIS 328
Cited by 18 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:
We are clearly and unanimously of opinion, that a mandamus ought not to issue. It is evident, that the District Judge was acting in a judicial capacity, when he determined, that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize his issuing a warrant for apprehending Captain Barre : and (whatever might be the difference of sentiment entertained by this Court) we have no power, to compel a Judge to decide to the dictates of any judgment, but his own. If is unnecessary, however, to declare, or to form, at this time, any conclusive opinion, on the question which has been so much agitated, respecting the evidence required by the 9th article of the Consular Convention.
The Rule discharged
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1919)…scr greatly from the pleading and practice prescribed for ordinary actions that we cannot doubt that Congress intended to continue the special character which has been given the proceeding from our early judicial history, United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42; Life & Fire Insurance Co. v. Wilson, supra; [*372] and we cannot discover any intention to include it within the general provisions for the limitation of actions. (§ 1265.) When a public official is unlawfully removed from office, whether from dis…
-
Ex parte Crane v. Crane, 5 Pet. 190 (U.S. 1831)…of a ministerial •* act by a judicial officer, is not, and cannot be a subject-matter for the cognisance of an appellate court, which acts onty on the judicial acts, the judgments and the decrees of inferior courts. In the United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42, 45, 43, it was unanimously decided, that this court could not issue a mandamus to a district judge, acting in a judicial capacity; that they had no power to compel a judge to decide according to any judgment but his own. So, in 1 Cranch 171, where…
-
Albert v. United States Dist. Court FOR THE W. Dist. OF Mich., 283 F.2d 61 (6th Cir. 1960)…urt to reverse a decision made by him in the exercise of a legitimate jurisdiction. Ex parte Flippin, 1876, 94 U.S. 348, 24 L.Ed. 194, or to compel him to decide according to the dictates of any judgment but his own, United States v. Lawrence, 1795, 3 Dall. 42,1 L.Ed. 502, or to control the exercise of his discretion. Gottlieb v. Rubenstein, 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F. 2d 779. This remedy is reserved for really extraordinary causes. It may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Associat…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence