Cloe v. State Ex Rel. Hale
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
“Where the application is for mandamus, it is essential that the relator have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required.” Armstrong v. O’Neal, Gov., 176 Ala. 611, 615, 58 South. 268, 270; Minchener v. Carroll, 135 Ala. 409, 33 South. 168.
The petition here exhibited is fatally defective as to both of these requirements.
1. The petitioner has no natural or inherent right to operate motor vehicles, as common carriers of passengers, on the streets of Birmingham. City of Montgomery v. Orpheum Taxi Co., 203 Ala. 103,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Montgomery v. Orpheum Taxi Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Minchener v. CarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Armstrong v. O'NealSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
3Cited by18 opinions
- City of Birmingham v. Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- City of Birmingham v. Hood-Mcpherson Realty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- City of Decatur v. MeadorsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Birmingham Interurban Taxicab Service Corp. v. McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- City of Mobile v. FarrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.