Legal Opinion
Washington ex rel. City of Seattle v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided September 5, 1924No. 413PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Mandamus is a high prerogative writ. 3 Bla. Com. 110; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 2 L. Ed. 60. It is an extraordinary remedy, where the usual and ordinary modes of procedure are powerless, and where without its aid there would bo a failure of justi.ee. Virginia T. & C. S. & I. Co. v. Wilder, 88 Va. 942, 14 S. E. 806. It has been termed a “criminal process relative to civil rights.” Lord Mansfield, in Rex v. Barker, 3 Burr. 1265, said: “It was introduced to prevent disorder from failure of justice and defect of! police,” and “if there bo a right and…
2Cases cited114 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Kendall v. United States Ex Rel. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Commonwealth of Ky. v. DENNISON, GOVERNOR, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Stone v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Minnesota v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1931
- Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. v. State Water Rights Board of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Johnson v. Interstate Power CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1960
- Consumers' Lignite Co. v. Lumberman's Mut. Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1934
- Washington ex rel. City of Seattle v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.