Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Millie B. Heathman v. United States District Court for the Central District of California,respondent

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 26, 1974No. 74-1438Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRichard H. Chambers, Circuit Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority. A writ of mandamus is available only “if ordinary remedies are inadequate and there are present exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which require the issuance of an extraordinary writ to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.” Hartley Pen Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 287 F.2d 324, 328 (9th Cir. 1961). No such extraordinary circumstances are presented by this ease.

I dissent, however, from the views expressed by the majority. Even assuming, without deciding, that it has properly distinguished Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Takao Ozawa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. St. Regis Paper Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Baird v. KoernerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  4. Hartley Pen Company v. United States District CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
  5. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. ShieldsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955

10 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