Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 41 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Amisub (Psl), Inc. v. State of Colorado Department of Social Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amisub (Psl), Inc. v. State of Colorado Department of Social Services Anchor | green | “no relief against state officials or state agencies is afforded by 1361.” | 15 |
| 2 | Rivers v. King | green | “this court has no jurisdiction to mandamus state officials because the statutory power to grant such writs is provided only against federal officials.” | 8 |
| 3 | Jackson v. Standifird | green | “federal courts have no power to issue writs of mandamus to state officers.” | 7 |
| 4 | Knox v. Bland | green | “have no authority to issue such a writ of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” | 6 |
| 5 | Clovis Carl Green., Jr. v. Honorable Edward W. Nottingham, District Judge Honorable Richard M. Borchers, Magistrate Judge | green | “petitions for writ of mandamus are included within the meaning of the term 'civil action' as used in 1915.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.