Mandamus
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 5 U.S. 137 - William Marbury v. James Madison · 1803Most cited · 5,264 citing opinions
Blackstone, in the third volume of his Commentaries, page 110, defines a mandamus to be, 'a command issuing in the king's name from the court of king's bench, and directed to any person, corporation, or inferior court of judicature within the king's dominions, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to their office and duty, and which the court of king's bench has previously determined, or at least supposes, to be consonant to right and justice.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Mandamus”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Mandamus,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Mandamus”
Court decisions citing the 31 opinions that defined “Mandamus” — 11,679 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 33 definitions, chronological · 1803–1968
The power of the Circuit Courts to issue the writ of mandamus, is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.
Circuit Court power
We think this is not a proper case for a mandamus. It does not differ in principle, from any other case in which the party should plead a defective plea, and the plaintiff should demur to it; in which case, there is no doubt that the revising power of this Court could be exercised only by a writ of error. If this motion could now prevail, it would be a plain evasion of the provision of the Act of Congress, that final judgments only should be brought before this Court for re-examination.
not available where writ of error lies
A writ of mandamus is not the appropriate remedy for any orders which may be made in a cause by a judge in the exercise of his authority; although they may seem to bear harshly or oppressively upon the party. The remedy in such cases must be sought in some other form.
not for ordinary judicial errors
a writ of mandamus is not a proper process to correct an erroneous judgment or decree rendered in an inferior Court. That is properly matter which is examinable upon a writ of error or an appeal, (as the case may require,) to the proper appellate tribunal.
not for erroneous judgment
speaking of the nature and character of the proceeding by mandamus, which had been fully argued at the bar, said that it was an action or suit brought in a court of justice, asserting a right, and prosecuted according to the forms of judicial proceeding; and that a party was entitled to it when there was no other adequate remedy.
nature
a mandamus, as before intimated, is only to compel the performance of some ministerial, as well as legal duty. ... When the duty is not strictly ministerial, but involves discretion and judgment, like the general doings of a head of a department, as was the respondent here, and as was the case here, no mandamus lies.
The rule to be gathered from all of these cases is too well settled to need further discussion. It cannot issue in a case where discretion and judgments are to be exercised by the officer; and it can be granted only where the act required to be done is merely ministerial, and the relator without any other adequate remedy.
when issues
It is a writ which may be issued to inferior courts and magistrates, to require them to execute that justice which the party is entitled to, and which, by law, they are enjoined to do, and where there is no other remedy.
the writ of mandamus is a remedy to compel any person, corporation, public functionary, or tribunal, to perform some duty required by law, where the party seeking relief has no other legal remedy, and the duty sought to be enforced is clear and indisputable.
It lies where there is a refusal to perform a ministerial act involving no exercise of judgment or discretion. It lies, also, where the exercise of judgment and discretion are involved and the officer refuses to decide, provided that, if he decided, the aggrieved party could have his decision reviewed by another tribunal. It is applicable only in these two classes of cases. It cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error.
when it lies
Mandamus, when issued in such a case by the Circuit Court, is neither a prerogative writ nor a new suit. On the contrary, it is a writ authorized by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, as necessary to the exercise of jurisdiction which has previously attached; and when issued in such a case becomes the substitute for the ordinary process of execution to enforce the judgment.
Though mandamus may sometimes lie against an executive officer to compel him to perform a mere ministerial act required of him by law, yet such an officer, to whom public duties are confided by law, is not subject to the control of the courts in the exercise of the judgment and discretion which the law reposes in him as part of his official functions.
ministerial act limitation
Where a court declines to hear a case or motion, alleging its own incompetency to do so, or that of the party to be heard, mandamus is the proper remedy. A writ of error or appeal does not lie; for what has the appellate court to review where the inferior court has not decided the case, but has refused to hear it?
Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide a matter before it in a particular way or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction, nor can the writ be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. ... Where the court refuses to take jurisdiction of a case and proceed to judgment therein, when it is its duty to do so and there is no other remedy, mandamus will lie unless the authority to issue it has been taken away by statute.
when proper
Proceedings in mandamus were never regarded as an action at law, or a suit in equity, and are not, therefore, a civil action within the meaning of the Code. Mandamus is an extraordinary or supplementary remedy, which cannot be resorted to if the party has any adequate, specific remedy.
extraordinary remedy
A writ of mandamus to compel a railroad corporation to do a particular act in constructing its road or buildings, or in running its trains, can be issued only when there is a specific legal duty on its part to do that act, and clear proof of a breach of that duty.
against railroad corporation
mandamus cannot be issued to compel the court below to decide a matter before it in a particular way, or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction, nor can the writ be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error.
function
The accustomed office of a writ of mandamus, when directed to a judicial officer, is to compel an exercise of existing jurisdiction, but not to control his decision. It does not lie to compel a reversal of a decision, either interlocutory or final, made in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction, especially where in regular course the decision may be reviewed upon a writ of error or an appeal.
scope
It is elementary that the writ of mandamus will not issue to require the court to do that which it has already done.
compelling court to act it has done
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use. It also is employed to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way nor to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken in the exercise of either.
- 1932·287 U.S. 178 - Interstate Commerce Commission v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad[p29]· cited 154×
Where a duty is not plainly prescribed, but is to be gathered by doubtful inference from statutes of uncertain meaning, it is regarded as involving the character of judgment or discretion, and mandamus is thereby excluded.
Although the remedy by mandamus is at law, its allowance is controlled by equitable principles, and it may be refused for reasons comparable to those which would lead a court of equity, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to withhold its protection of an undoubted legal right.
- 1933·289 U.S. 385 - Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Campbell[p11]· cited 251×
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a judicial officer to act. It may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to dictate the manner of his action.
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use. It also is employed to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way nor to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken in the exercise of either.
- 1935·294 U.S. 50 - United States Chicago Great Western Co v. Interstate Commerce Commission[p23]· cited 104×
If on the other hand power and authority are plainly found in the act, and the Commission erroneously refuses to exercise such power and authority, mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel that body to proceed and to hear the case upon the merits. Not only must there be no such remedy, but it must appear that the administrative tribunal was plainly and palpably wrong in refusing to take jurisdiction.
Where the right of the petitioner is not clear, and the duty of the officer, performance of which is to be commanded, is not plainly defined and peremptory, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.
it is a high function of mandamus to keep a lower tribunal from interposing unauthorized obstructions to enforcement of a judgment of a higher court. That function may be as important in protecting a past exercise of jurisdiction as in safeguarding a present or future one.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases.
The petitioner has not met the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable'.
clear and indisputable right
Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies. These remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.
extraordinary remedy
The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.
traditional use
a suit against a public officer to compel performance of some 'ministerial' duty
original sense