State v. Miller-Wohl Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Terry, J.:
In discussing the jurisdiction of this Court relative to the first question involved, it is axiomatic that any interest sought to be secured or enforced by writ of mandamus must constitute a clear legal right existing in the relator at the time of the application. State v. Simmons, 3 Penn. 291, 50 A. 213. The writ will never issue in doubtful cases. Road Commissioners v. New Castle, 2 Penn. 466, 47 A. 374. Nor will the writ issue to enforce a right found to be in substantial dispute, or a right which is inchoate or prospective. 38 C. J. 582.
It is apparent that the problem involved…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Jones v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State v. Loft, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1931
- Varney v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- State Ex Rel. Brumley v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1910
- State v. Cities Service CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Buechner v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AktiengesellschaftCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
- Shaw v. Agri-Mark, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Buechner v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AktiengesellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1959
- Fleisher Development Corporation v. Home Owners Warranty Corporation Fleisher Development Corporation v. Home Owners Warranty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- State Ex Rel. Armour & Co. v. Gulf Sulphur Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1967
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.