Writ of Mandamus Is Legalese for

The purpose of mandamus is to remedy the shortcomings of justice. It is found in cases where there is a specific right but no specific remedy to enforce that right. In general, it is not available in anticipation of harm unless the applicant is likely to be affected by an official act that violates a legal obligation or an unlawful or unconstitutional order is issued. The granting of mandamus is therefore an equitable remedy and is left to the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is governed by established principles. [4] A writ of mandamus can only be submitted in certain circumstances. It cannot be used for: Please do not confuse a writ of mandamus with a call. An appeal is (usually) when a losing party asks an appellate court to determine that a judge of a lower court erred. Appeals almost always occur after a case has been closed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has interpreted this to mean that if, for example, one litigant requires the judge to make an earlier order, the other litigant in the same case is free to answer in place of (or in addition) the judge presiding over both parties to the case. The Supreme Court noted in Kerr that writ of mandamus has traditionally been used by federal courts only to limit an inferior court to a legitimate exercise of its jurisdiction or to compel a lower court to exercise its authority when it was required to do so. The Court also noted that mandamus is only available in exceptional cases because it disrupts the judicial process and leads to disorder and delay in the proceedings. The statement would have been appropriate, the court said, if the trial court had misdecided an issue, if failure to reverse that decision had caused irreparable harm to a party, and if there had been no other remedy.

Since prison officials can claim the privilege of withholding certain documents and have the right to have them examined by a judge before releasing them to the opposing party, there are other remedies and the request is inappropriate. The plaintiff pleading for enforcement of mandamus should be able to prove that he has the legal right to compel the defendant to perform or refrain from performing the act in question. The obligation to be applied must have two characteristics:[3] (man-dame-us) n. Latin for “we order”, a script (more modern called “warrant script”) that orders a public authority or government agency to perform an act prescribed by law if it has omitted or refused to do so. Examples: Once petitions have been submitted with enough valid signatures to qualify a proposal for voting, the city refuses to call the election, claiming it has a legal opinion that the proposal is unconstitutional. Supporters of the proposal filed a petition for an injunction ordering the city to hold the election. The court orders a hearing on the statement and then issues the statement or dismisses the motion. Either a state agency refuses to release public information, a school district charges a student in violation of state law, or a judge will deny journalists access to a public trial. This declaration was introduced to prevent disturbances caused by miscarriage of justice; Therefore, it should be applied in all cases where the law does not provide for a specific remedy. It should also be used where justice and good government should be one. Mandamus will not be where the law has given another specific remedy. With respect to the mandamus of a United States Court of Appeals to a United States District Court, the Supreme Court has held that appellate courts may, at their discretion, issue a mandamus to review an abuse of authority by the lower court in unusual circumstances where there are compelling reasons not to await an appeal from a final judgment.

[16] This discretion is exercised sparingly. It is exercised somewhat more frequently, albeit sparingly, in discovery disputes involving privileged documents, as a district court order wrongly compelling the disclosure of protected material may never be corrected by a subsequent appeal. [ref. needed] In In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center (2013), privacy advocates filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court to end the National Security Agency`s massive phone record collection program. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. In general, decisions of a lower court taken in the course of ongoing proceedings are not reviewed by the higher courts until a final judgement on the merits has been rendered. At the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. Article 1291 stipulates that the hearing of appeals from decisions of the lower courts must be postponed until a final judgement has been rendered by the lower court. A writ of mandamus offers an exception to this rule. If a party to a case is not satisfied with a decision of the court of first instance, he or she may challenge the decision before applying to a higher court for an order of mandamus. The order will only be placed in exceptional cases.

While a writ of mandamus does not guarantee that your application will be accepted, it can give you peace of mind by ending a long period of indefinite waiting. The filing of a memorandum of mandamus often serves as a strict push for DHS. DHS may decide to rule on your application and avoid the case altogether once the lawsuit has been filed. The case is closed when DHS decides before it must respond to the lawsuit. B@D[3] [Examination denied] In the State of California, the declaration may be issued by any level of the state court system to a lower court or government official. The writ of warrant is used in California for injunctions. In this context, the party seeking the application is treated as a plaintiff on appeal, the court of first instance becomes the defendant and the opponent is designated as a “party in rem in the interest”. Appellate courts generally grant an application for a writ of mandamus if the lower court has abused its discretion and the plaintiff has no other recourse.