| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

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.
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.