United States Ex Rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414 (1931). · Go Syfert
United States Ex Rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414 (1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
382 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 47 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gardner v. Haaland (dcd, 2025-11-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gardner v. Haaland
D.D.C. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Fuentes v. Azar
D.D.C. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump
D.D.C. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Yasmin Ibarra Ortega and Williams Cisneros Cortez v. Loren K. Miller, Kristi Noem, Kika Scott, Marco Rubio, Conn Schrader, and Margaret L. Taylor
E.D. Wash. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial 20 and the obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. the law must not only 1 authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and 2 indisputable.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Trump (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 2018 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States (2×)
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2006 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and plainly defined. the law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gu v. United States Department of the Treasury
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Akter v. Blinken
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Bessent
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Castaneira v. Mayorkas
D.D.C. · 2023 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414,420 (1931).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Illinois v. David Ferriero
D.C. Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also In re Bluewater Network, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Soto Alvarado v. Garland
D.R.I. · 2022 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931) (Writ of mandamus “will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Inogen, Inc. v. Azar
D.D.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maynard v. Architect of the Capitol
D.D.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419 (1931) (“The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it[.]” (emphasis added)), because the defendant’s human resources manual is not a statute, see supra note 4, at 8. 16 Accordingly, the Court concludes that it also lacks jurisdiction over Count I to the extent that the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the Mandamus Act. 16 In his opposition, the plaintiff argues that Monmouth Medical Center v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 807 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re: Donald Trump
4th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Durr v. Department of Army
D.D.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J. C. v.
3rd Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. United States Parole Commission
D.D.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931)); Lozada Colon v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar
10th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Gary Housley v. United States of America
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nakamura v. Heinrich
Ct. Intl. Trade · 1992 · confidence medium
McClennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931), cited in 13th Regional Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 654 F.2d 758, 760 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jung Ja Malandris v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
10th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
A litigant gaining a verdict thereby will not be permitted the benefit of calculation, which can be little better than speculation, as to the extent of the wrong inflicted upon his opponent." 171 283 U.S. at 521-22, 51 S.Ct. at 502. 172 Appellate courts have ordered remittiturs when reversible error is found in the trial proceedings, the effects of which can be reasonably approximated to either a definite portion of a verdict or a maximum amount.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Jeffrey L. Knable, Jeffrey L. Knable v. Jerry v. Wilson, Chief, Metropolitan Police Department
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419-420 , 51 S.Ct. 502, 504 , 75 L.Ed. 1148, 1152 (1931); Wilbur v. United States ex rel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Knable v. Wilson
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419-420 , 51 S.Ct. 502, 504 , 75 L.Ed. 1148, 1152 (1931); Wilbur v. United States ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James W. Haley v. Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior
D.C. Cir. · 1960 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 418, 419 , 51 S.Ct. 502, 504 , 75 L.Ed. 1148 , held that the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act plainly indicated “that Congress held in mind the distinction between a positive mandate to the Secretary and permission to take certain action in his discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fred A. Seaton, Individually and as Secretary of the Interior v. The Texas Company, John Snyder v. The Texas Company (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1958 · confidence medium
Barton v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419, 420 , 51 S.Ct. 502, 504 , 75 L.Ed. 1148 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grace Line, Inc., and National Bulk Carriers, Inc., Intervening v. Panama Canal Company
2d Cir. · 1957 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 418, 420 , 51 S.Ct. 502 , 75 L.Ed. 1148 ; United States ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grace Line, Inc. v. Panama Canal Co. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1956 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 418, 420 , 51 S.Ct. 502 , 75 L.Ed. 1148 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sibley v. Park
Ga. · 1932 · confidence medium
McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U. S. 414, 420 (51 Sup. Ct. 502).
discussed Cited "see" Cobell v. Babbitt (2×)
D.D.C. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See McLennan, 283 U.S. at 420 , 51 S.Ct. 502 .
discussed Cited "see" Soares v. Brockton Credit
1st Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States ex rel. ___ ______________________ McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931) (indicating that a ________ ______ duty is ministerial if "the obligation to act [is] peremptory, and plainly defined"); Neal v. Regan, 587 F. Supp. 1558 , 1562 ____ _____ (N.D.
cited Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. Greathouse v. Dern
SCOTUS · 1933 · signal: see · confidence high
See McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419, 420 ; Interstate Commerce Commission v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wisenak, Inc. v. Andrus (2×)
D. Alaska · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wilbur v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 11, 13-14 , 46 F.2d 217, 219-220 (1930) affirmed 283 U.S. 415 , 51 S.Ct. 502 , 75 L.Ed. 1148 (1931). 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES Ex Rel. McLENNAN
v.
WILBUR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; UNITED STATES Ex Rel. SIMPSON v. WILBUR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Et Al.; UNITED STATES Ex Rel. BARTON v. WILBUR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; UNITED STATES Ex Rel. PYRON v. WILBUR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Et Al.
618, 676, 704, 743.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1931.
283 U.S. 414
Messrs. Lewis Edwin Hoffman and Chester 1. Long for McLennan., Mr. Homer Hendricks, with whom Messrs. Donald V. Hunter and James C. Sheppard were on the brief, for Simpson., Mr. James Conlon, with whom Mr. Charles F. Breen was on the brief, for Barton., Mr. James G. Leovy, with whom Messrs. John W. Fisher, A. W. Gregg, and Weston Vernon, Jr., were on the brief, for Pyron., Assistant Attorney General Richardson, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, Messrs. Claude R. Branch and Aubrey Lawrence, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, and Paul D. Miller were on the brief, for respondents., Messrs. James A. Greenwood, Attorney General of Wyoming, and Clarence L. Ireland, Attorney General of Colorado, with whom Messrs. L. A. Foot, Attorney General of Montana, George P. Parker, Attorney General of Utah, E. K. Neumann, Attorney General of New Mexico, and Peter Q. Nyce were on the brief, as amici curiae, by special leave of Court.
McReynolds.
Cited by 142 opinions  |  Published
4 passages pin-cited by 4 cases
Pinpoint authority: #32,575 of 633,719
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (3) · Court of International Trade (2) · E.D. Virginia (1) · E.D. Washington (1)
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

All these causes turn on the same point of law; the records disclose facts not materially different; one opinion will suffice.

The Act of Congress approved February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, intended to promote certain mining operations, contains thirty-eight sections.

Section 1. That deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, oil, oil shale, or gas, and lands containing such deposits owned by the United States, . . . shall be subject to disposition in the form and manner provided by this Act . . .

“ Sec. 13. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, under such necessary and proper rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to grant to any applicant qualified under this Act a prospecting permit, which shall give the exclusive right, for a period not exceeding two years, to prospect for oil or gas upon not to exceed two thousand five hundred and sixty acres of land wherein such deposits belong to the United States and are not within any known geological structure of a producing oil or gas field upon condition that the permittee shall begin drfiling operations within six months from the date of the permit, and shall, within one year from and after the date of permit, drill one or more wells for oil or gas to a depth of not less than five hundred feet each, unless valuable deposits of oií or gas shall be sooner discovered, and shall, within two years from date of the permit, drill for oil or[*417] gas to an aggregate depth of not less than two thousand" feet unless valuable deposits of oil or gas shall be sooner discovered. . . .”

Sec. 14. That upon establishing to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior that valuable deposits, of oil or gas have been discovered within the limits of the land embraced in any permit, the permittee shall be entitled to a lease for one-fourth of the land embraced in the prospecting permit: . . .”

Section 9 authorizes the Secretary to lease lands containing deposits of phosphates under such general regulation as he may adopt. By § 17 unappropriated deposits of oil or gas situated within the known geologic structure of a producing oil or gas field “ may be leased by the Secretary of the Interior to the highest responsible bidder, . . .” such leases to be conditioned upon the payment by the lessee of such bonus as may be accepted and of such royalty as may be fixed in the lease, etc. Section 21 authorizes the Secretary to lease deposits of oil shale under such regulations as he may prescribe, for indefinite periods.

Section 2 declares that the Secretary is authorized to, and upon the petition of any qualified applicant shall, divide any of the coal lands or the deposits of coal, classified and unclassified, owned by the United States, outside of the Territory of Alaska, into leasing tracts of forty acres each, . . .” and thereafter “ shall, in his discretion, upon the request of any qualified applicant or on his own motion, from time to time, offer such lands or deposits of coal for leasing, and shall award leases thereon by competitive bidding or by such other methods as he may by general regulations adopt, to any qualified applicant. . . .”

Sec. 22. That any bona fide occupant or claimant of oil or gas bearing lands in the Territory of Alaska, who, or whose predecessors in interest, prior to withdrawal had[*418] complied otherwise with the requirements of the mining laws, but had made no discovery of oil or gas in wells and who prior to withdrawal had made substantial improvements for the discovery of oil or gas on or for each lo-' cation or had prior to the- passage of this Act expended not less than $250 in improvements on or for each location shall be entitled, upon relinquishment or surrender to the United States within one year from the date of this Act, or within six months after final denial or withdrawal of application for patent, to a prospecting permit or permits, lease or leases, under this Act covering such lands, ...”

Section 23. That the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to grant to any qualified applicant a prospecting permit which shall give the exclusive right to prospect for chlorides, sulphates, carbonates, borates, silicates, or nitrates of sodium . . .”

These provisions quite plainly indicate that Congress held in mind the distinction between a positive mandate to the Secretary and permission to take certain .action in his discretion. Also, the difference between applicants for mere privileges and those persons who because of expenditures, or otherwise, deserved special consideration.

The petitioners, acting separately and as directed by the general rules and regulations, either filed or sought to file applications for permits to prospect for oil and gas under § 13. . In order to effectuate the conservation policy of the President, the Secretary of the Interior by a general order either rejected or refused to receive their applications. Thereupon, these proceedings were begun in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia. They seek writs of mandamus to compel the Secretary to receive or reinstate the applications and act upon each according to its merits.

[*419] Answering, the Secretary admitted issuance of the general order and action thereunder. All this he claimed was done in pursuance of the authority vested in him by law. The Supreme Court of the District held against him and orderéd receipt or reinstatement of petitioner’s applications followed by definite action thereon. The Court, of Appeals reached a different conclusion and reversed the judgments.

The answers aver “ that under the Act, [1920] the granting of a prospecting permit for oil and gas is discretionary with the Secretary of the Interior, and any application may be granted or denied, either in part or in its entirety as the facts may be deemed to warrant,” Having examined the Act we cannot say that by any clear and indisputable language it refutes his position. Certainly, there is ground for a plausible, if not conclusive, argument that so far as it relates to the leasing of oil lands it goes no further than to empower the Secretary to execute leases which, exercising a reasonable discretion, he may think would promote the public welfare.

It is unnecessary now to declare the precise meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act. It was passed when according to a widely accepted view decline of petroleum production in the United States was imminent. In fact, there has been an enormous increase and a consequent troublesome surplus. Looking only at its words one may interpret i§ 13 as the Secretary says he did. And this conclusion is aided by consideration of his general powers over the public lands as guardian of the people. § 441, R. S.; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506; Williams v. United States, 138 U. S. 514; Knight v. U. S. Land Assn., 142 U. S. 161; also the right of the President to withdraw public lands from private appropriation. United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459; Withdrawal Act, 1910, 36 Stat. 847.

[*420] Under the established rule the writ of mandamus cannot be made to serve the purpose of an ordinary suit. It will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to' act peremptory, and plainly defined. The law must not only authorize, the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable. U. S. ex rel. International Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 155 U. S. 303, 308; Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U. S. 627, 633; Work v. Rives, 267 U. S. 175.

The judgments under review must be

Affirmed.