Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Green

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 22, 1930No. 6 Div. 609PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

The respondent in this court denies that this proceeding is appropriate to obtain the relief sought by the petitioner. This is upon the theory that an order of consolidation is discretionary and that when the court acts, mandamus will not review that action, nor direct the manner, of exercising a discretionary power.

While an order of consolidation is said in some instances to be discretionary, it may always be reviewed if the facts do not justify it. It is when the facts do justify it, that the court may have a discretion in granting it. Corpus Juris, 1123, 1124. But the abuse of a discretion…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. v. Continental Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
  2. Brady v. BradySupreme Court of Alabama · 1905
  3. Ex parte WattersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  4. Ex Parte Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  5. McDavid v. Bank of Bay MinetteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Flexible Products Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  2. Ex Parte AshtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  3. Ex Parte GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  4. Herren v. BeckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  5. Keith & Wilkinson v. ForsytheSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933

18 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