Garfield v. Goldsby
211 U.S. 249 (1908)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U.S. 249 (1908)

Garfield v. Goldsby

No. 248

Argued October 15, 18, 1908

Decided November 30, 1908

211 U.S. 249

Syllabus

While acts of public officials which require the exercise of discretion may not be subject to review in the courts, if such acts are purely ministerial or are undertaken without authority, the courts have jurisdiction, and mandamus is the proper remedy.

There is no place in our constitutional system for the exercise of arbitrary power, and the courts have power to restore the status of parties aggrieved by the unwarranted action of a public official.

One who has acquired rights by an administrative or judicial proceeding cannot be deprived of them without notice and opportunity to be heard; such deprivation would be without due process of law.

After the Secretary of the Interior has approved a list containing the name of a person found by the Dawes Commission to be entitled to enrollment for distribution, he cannot, without giving that person

Page 211 U. S. 250

notice and opportunity to be heard, strike his name from the list. It would not be due process of law.

30 App.D.C. 177 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 211 U. S. 255

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.