Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Griffith v. Godey & Another

• 1884 • 113 U.S. 89 • Waite Court
Griffith v. Godey & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Griffith, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel it to hear a case that had been dismissed by the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court....Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1884
Docket: 131
113 U.S. 89
5 S. Ct. 383
28 L. Ed. 934
1885 U.S. LEXIS 1655
Argued: Dec 15, 1884

Griffith v. Godey & Another

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Griffith v. Godey & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Griffith, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel it to hear a case that had been dismissed by the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the proceedings of a federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the plaintiff's complaint. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had other remedies available to him, such as appealing the dismissal of his case to a higher court. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Griffith v. Godey & Another, arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that it was not within their power to review and reverse such judgments, as they were bound by Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which states that “the judicial Power shall extend…to Controversies between two or more States” and this case did not involve any controversy between two or more states. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some error on behalf of the state court, it would have been up to them alone to correct it; for federal courts only possess appellate jurisdiction over cases involving questions arising under federal law or treaties with foreign nations. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how dangerous precedent could be set if every time a state court made an erroneous ruling on matters concerning local laws and customs, parties aggrieved by those rulings could appeal directly to federal courts instead of appealing through proper channels established by each individual state's constitution and statutes.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Jan 12, 1885
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms