Legal Opinion

Sutton v. Figgatt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1971No. 70PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. People ex rel. Bruce v. DunneIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
  2. White v. Board of AppealsIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Harris v. . Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. City of Hickory v. Catawba CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Edgerton v. . KirbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Tri-County Paving, Incorporated v. Ashe County Ashe County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
  3. In re T.H.T.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  4. Lloyd v. BabbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Satorre v. New Hanover County Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004

16 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