Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People Ex Rel. Carlstrom v. Shurtleff

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1933No. 21708. Writ awardedPublished

1Concurrence

Mr. Chief Justice Orr,

specially concurring:

I concur in the result reached in the foregoing opinion but cannot concur in much of its reasoning. The same result could have been obtained by appeal or writ of error without doing violence to well established precedent. Our court has repeatedly held that mandamus does not lie-when the trial court has jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, and the conclusion of a trial court that it has jurisdiction to enter the disputed order is subject to review only on appeal or writ of error. (People v. Ehler, 353 Ill. 595.) Mandamus cannot be issued to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. People ex rel. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1905
  2. People Ex Rel. Barrett v. ShurtleffIllinois Supreme Court · 1933
  3. City of Ottawa v. People ex rel. CatonIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
  4. People Ex Rel. Swanson v. SullivanIllinois Supreme Court · 1930
  5. People ex rel. Wonogas v. HolmesIllinois Supreme Court · 1924

4 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