Talk:Mandamus

Incoherent text

In the administrative law context in the United States, the requirement that mandamus can be used only to compel a ministerial act that has largely been abandoned.

This sentence does not make syntactic sense. What is it supposed to mean? It is two dependent clauses. There is no object, and there is no verb which would apply to an object. It is an incomplete point. Presumably the word "abandoned" should be followed by something along the lines of "is" or "was" or "has been", with a final clause afterwards explaining what the requirement is or was or has been, "in the administrative law context in the United States". Or else the final instance of the word "that" must be omitted, if it's the requirement itself which has largely been abandoned. If that's the claim, then ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Who wrote this, why did they write it, and why did they write it in such an obfuscated mode? --75.58.54.17 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the application for that must be made in good faith and not for indirect purposes. Acquiescence cannot, however, bar the issue of mandamus. The petitioner must, of course, satisfy the Court that he has the legal right to the performance of the legal duty as distinct from mere discretion of authority.[5] A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and which despite demand in writing has not been performed. In no other case will a writ of mandamus issue unless it be to quash an illegal order."

This section is a total mess. The language is completely opaque and grammatically incorrect in places. What are "indirect purposes"? What does it mean that "[a]cquiescence cannot . . . bar the issue of mandamus"? Moreover, the cite at [5] is either impossible to obtain through normal research channels, is an incorrect cite, or simply does not exist. And most of the case law citations in this article are to Indian decisions; given the long history of mandamus in common law jurisdictions originating from British courts, wouldn't it make more sense to cite to UK decisions? At the very least, such cases would be easier to find and check than the Indian ones.

This whole section could really use a re-write. Mnemophobe (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of Writ of Mandamus

Would it be a good idea to compile a list of examples for when a Writ of Mandamus has been used? I think it would add some clarity to this article by demonstrating who would use a mandamus petition, why they would have to use one, and what the outcome was. Please note that I have not studied law, so my wording may not be "appropriate" for this article.

For example, William M. Windsor's Mandamus Petition (filed 1st Week of Nov 2010) asks the Supreme Court to address three questions: [1]

1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

Or what about Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 from 1976? [2] I think this case helped to define what sort of petitions could be filed as mandamus. The defendant (California Adult Authority) tried to block the plaintiff's class action lawsuit by saying their files were "irrelevant, confidential, and privileged". [3] The court basically denied it and stated "As a means of implementing the rule that mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances, the party seeking this largely discretionary writ must show that there are no other adequate means to secure the desired relief. Pp. 426 U. S. 402-403." [4]

Weber Lover (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure these are the best examples, but the article still definitely needs some. -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Writ of Mandamus in U.S. state appellate courts

Does anyone know if this writ is used in U.S. state appeals courts for relief from default in filing timely criminal appeals? I've seen petitions for Habeas in California appeal courts for relief from default (Fourth District) while other courts (Sixth District) ask for a motion for relief instead of a writ. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fault in editing result in part of reference winding up in article text

The following sentence appears to have part of a reference attached at the end, don't know how to fix since the reference isn't at all clear.

"If a County Court refuses to either authorize or reject applications then the person who made the applications has to apply for permission to apply for judicial review in doing so the injured party might eventually obtain a mandatory order asking the county court to show respect to the applications that have been made.ref official notice from queens bench RCJ" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.96.244 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Types of Mandamus

I am not familiar with the 3rd type of Continuing Mandamus and the reference appears to be concerning India. Another thing is that a Mandamus is a court order and under Continuing Mandamus there is the statement, "A Mandamus issued to a lower authority in general public interest asking the officer..." and this is not consistent with the article nor the legal definition of a "writ of Mandamus" being a court order. Of course I do not have access to the reference, and I am not doubting the existence, but; I do know that if this is an option in the courts of India this needs to be explained or entered in the appropriate section, AND the wording or translation checked for the use of the word "asking". Otr500 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article was likely originally written with Indian law in mind and received a large infusion of U.S. law material at some point. Honestly the entire article needs a rewrite. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mandamus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150819205457/http://www.lexwarrier.org/writ-of-mandamus-and-indian-constitution.html to http://www.lexwarrier.org/writ-of-mandamus-and-indian-constitution.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116095205/http://law.mongabay.com/news/Peremptory_Writ_Of_Mandate.html to http://law.mongabay.com/news/peremptory_writ_of_mandate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119123611/http://www.arielconsult.com/ChildCustodyVA/ to http://www.arielconsult.com/childcustodyVA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)