Wright v. Kelley
Idaho Supreme Court
Original proceeding by mandamus. “Mandamus lies to compel the performance of an act enjoined by law.” (Eev. Stats., 4977; High on Extraordinary Eemedies, secs. 31, 323; Merrill on Mandamus, 134, and cases cited.) “Where a plain, specific duty is imposed on a public ■officer or body,, and they refuse, or unreasonably neglect, to perform the duties required of them by law, they will be put in motion by mandamus." (School Dist. No. 2 v. School Dist.
Read the full summary
Original proceeding by mandamus. “Mandamus lies to compel the performance of an act enjoined by law.” (Eev. Stats., 4977; High on Extraordinary Eemedies, secs. 31, 323; Merrill on Mandamus, 134, and cases cited.) “Where a plain, specific duty is imposed on a public ■officer or body,, and they refuse, or unreasonably neglect, to perform the duties required of them by law, they will be put in motion by mandamus." (School Dist. No. 2 v. School Dist. No. 1, 3 Wis. 333.) Mandamus will lie to compel a board of county commissioners to pass on and audit claims against the county properly presented to…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, C. J.
In this case the writ of mandate is asked for in the first instance from this court. Writs of this character must be applied for in the first instance from the district court, unless reasons are given which render it indispensable that the writ should issue originally from this court (Rules Sup. Ct., rule 28, par. 5, 32 Pac. xii); and the sufficiency or insufficiency of said reasons will be determined by this court in awarding or refusing the writ. The petition gives as a reason for not applying for the writ in the first instance from the judge of the district court, that he is informed and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smyth v. TitcombSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1850
- In re ShortSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- County of Los Angeles v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- People ex rel. Lincoln County v. GeorgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1891
- People ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Threadgill v. Cross, Secretary of StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- City of Albuquerque v. Water Supply Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
- State ex rel. University of Utah v. CandlandUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- State Ex Rel. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. v. County of SteeleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Cohn v. KingsleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1897
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.