Legal Opinion

State v. Miller-Wohl Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided September 9, 1942No. 161PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Jones v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  2. State v. Loft, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1931
  3. Varney v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  4. State Ex Rel. Brumley v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1910
  5. State v. Cities Service CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1922

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Buechner v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AktiengesellschaftCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
  2. Shaw v. Agri-Mark, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  3. Buechner v. Farbenfabriken Bayer AktiengesellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1959
  4. Fleisher Development Corporation v. Home Owners Warranty Corporation Fleisher Development Corporation v. Home Owners Warranty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
  5. State Ex Rel. Armour & Co. v. Gulf Sulphur Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1967

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API