The Myth of Ashby v. White

Ted Sampsell-Jones

Mitchell Hamline School of Law

University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2011
William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-07

Ashby v. White is widely believed to have established the principle that “for every right, there must be a remedy,” sometimes known as the “ubi jus” principle. The ubi jus principle has played an important role in American law - it is frequently cited by both courts and scholars. Perhaps most famously, it was a central part of the rationale of Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, establishing the foundations of judicial review. As the supposed progenitor of the ubi jus principle, Ashby has been praised as one of the most important cases is Anglo-American legal history.

In this article, I demonstrate that the accepted account of Ashby's holding is wrong. By relying on previously ignored historical sources and case reports, I demonstrate that if anything, Ashby actually rejected the ubi jus principle. Even more fundamentally, a close reading of Ashby demonstrates how conceptually hollow the ubi jus principle is.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: Ashby v. White, ubi jus, rights, remedies

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 18, 2011 ; Last revised: November 11, 2011

Suggested Citation

Sampsell-Jones, Ted, The Myth of Ashby v. White. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2011; William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1911360

Contact Information

Ted Sampsell-Jones (Contact Author)
Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )
875 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-3076
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,727
Downloads: 212
Download Rank: 107,782

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds