Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Pace

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided August 4, 2000No. 1990942Published

1DissentHooper, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the trial judge acted within his discretion in denying the attorney’s application. “[Because] mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, the standard of review for a writ of mandamus is whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge.... ” Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So.2d 704, 706 (Ala.1987); Ex parte Allstate Life Ins. Co., 741 So.2d 1066, 1069 (Ala.1999). Evidence that Ms. Gutierrez had lied about a shoplifting conviction, on both an application to law school and an application for a clerkship, gave the trial judge ample reason to deny…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ex Parte RudolphSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  2. Ex Parte Ben-Acadia, Ltd.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1990
  3. Ex Parte Allstate Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1999
  4. Ex Parte WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API