Sutton v. Figgatt
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
SHARP, Justice.
Although plaintiffs ask the court for a mandatory injunction directed to defendant Figgatt, and for a declaratory judgment designed for the enlightenment of the twenty-one magistrates of Mecklenburg County, they have alleged a cause of action for a writ of mandamus. However, in this State, where the court exercises both legal and equitable jurisdiction, in a suit against a public official or board there is no practical difference in the results to be obtained by the common-law remedy of mandamus and the equitable remedy of mandatory injunction. Safrit v. Costlow, 270 N.C. 680,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- People ex rel. Bruce v. DunneIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
- White v. Board of AppealsIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
- Harris v. . Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- City of Hickory v. Catawba CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Edgerton v. . KirbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Tri-County Paving, Incorporated v. Ashe County Ashe County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
- In re T.H.T.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
- Lloyd v. BabbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Satorre v. New Hanover County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.