Legal Opinion
Huggins v. Mulvey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 2, 1971PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Ctjeiam.
The plaintiffs have moved this court for leave to file an attached petition for a writ of mandamus “and/or” writ of prohibition, and for an immediate hearing thereon. Mandamus is available to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act and will not lie to direct the performance of an act involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. State ex rel. Scala v. Airport Commission, 154 Conn. 168, 176, 224 A.2d 236, and cases cited. It cannot and does not act on a doubtful and contested right. Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 12, 220 A.2d 439. The writ has never been…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Maryland v. Soper, JudgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, Los Angeles Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Ex Parte MuirSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Ex Parte TiffanySupreme Court of the United States · 1920
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kosinski v. LawlorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Light v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Traylor v. STATE SUPERIOR COURTConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Anonymous v. Superintendent of HospitalConnecticut Superior Court · 1976
- Cfm of Connecticut v. Susco, No. 70 11 17 (Nov. 1, 1990)Connecticut Superior Court · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.