Legal Opinion

Hinshaw v. McIver

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1956No. 740PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

It is settled law in this jurisdiction that mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a purely ministerial duty imposed by law, and that the party seeking the writ must have a clear legal right to demand it, and the party sought to be coerced must be under legal obligation to perform the.duty. Bryan v. Sanford, ante, 30, 97 S.E. 2d 420; Nebel v. Nebel, 241 N.C. 491 (499), 85 S.E. 2d 876; Harris v. Board of Education, 216 N.C. 147, 4 S.E. 2d 328. “Its purpose is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty — not to establish a. legal right, but to enforce one which has been…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Harris v. . Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  2. Turner v. . New BernSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. St. George v. HansonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Prawdzik v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Wake Forest v. . MedlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Ponder v. JoslinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. State v. NicholsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
  4. McDowell v. Randolph CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  5. Watson v. Watson Seed Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

1 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