Mandamus - The Extraordinary Writ - AmJur

追加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:48]The crime says hit the like >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Greetings and welcome to Mandamus.

[00:03:30]This will be a comprehensive overview of the extraordinary writ from American juristprudence.

[00:03:36]And as we know, mandamus comes from the Latin we command and it's to compel some type of uh action here and remedy. But uh before we get started, just to remind everyone this is strictly for the educational entertainment purposes of this YouTube channel broadcast not to be used, misconstrued or abuse for anything legal, lawful, public, private, business, financial, tax, or otherwise.

[00:03:59]So please don't do this at home. That said, let's get started.

[00:04:04]So we're going to be covering a few things here. We're going to be covering generally the nature and the definition and the uh Oops, a second here. There we go.

[00:04:16]and the bird to proof the extraordinary character of the rid of mandamus and how the mandamus differs from other remedies.

[00:04:25]>> Audit them says get the op.

[00:04:27]>> Yes, sir. And thank you for the membership. Speaking of membership, before we get started, while we're waiting for people to arrive, we've uh revamping the membership levels here on the tribe channel. And just to give you a little overview and for those of you that are here, we're going to have a different tiers set up here for the membership level now. And these are the tiers and the purposes of each of them.

[00:04:53]So starting with the tier one is the protocol. This is our the first level here. And here's how we're relating it to the channel. And what we do here is this is going to be the knowledge of the rules. So the member understands the syntax and the foundational standards, how things are put together. So here are some of the topics we cover on the channel and what the the protocol level here would be the one that's most interested in things like the original writ.

[00:05:21]network rules involving the technology that we cover especially regarding blockchain and with logic the axioms or the accepted uh presuppositions and and uh and such there when it comes to logic then we have tier two is the validator and this is once there's been knowledge of the process this way the member can audit verify and apply logic to the protocol the foundational standards the rules and the accepted protocols So this involves some of the other uh field alignments here with the channel such as accounting and auditing the blockchain involving the node and how it must validate the information before it's entered into to that ledger and logic the proof checker to know where the fallacies exist and errors in logic and reasoning. And the yet to be released level yet the tier three is the sovereign and this is once the member has achieved knowledge of the source and the intellectual autonomy and strategic mastery. At this point we got the jurist prudence which is the love of the wisdom and knowledge of the law and the final authority involving artificial intelligence. will be looking at self-governing systems such as the autonomous organizations decentralized and such and smart contracts as well. So there might be some community involvement with this membership level yet to be announced and released and of course through the history in the trend center. So this is where uh focusing on how are these ideas blossomed in the first place and looking at some of the mathematicians and philosophers and the thinkers the trends setters that brought us the evolved uh knowledge that has come to give us more and more autonomy.

[00:07:08]So those are the upcoming levels there or the upcoming levels of sovereign.

[00:07:13]Right now we have the protocol and the validator levels that are are available and let's take a look at those. So, the protocol level is at 299 and that includes loyalty badges, the special emojis that we have here. And I think I can uh pull some of these up here if I'm not mistaken. I think I even get the membership levels. Yeah. So, we get a few different uh emojis here that come up with the channel membership here and at all levels.

[00:07:43]And uh talking chat will be for the uh protocol members. And this way some of the newcomers to the channel get a little spooked with the talking chat. So perhaps at this low level here, this cost of entry be uh accessible for everyone that does want to participate.

[00:07:59]And of course, we'll have some members only live streams for those. And of course with that talking chat, you get priority reply to comments. Not like there's much of a choice there for me.

[00:08:09]And then at $9.99, we have the validator level. In this one, you'll also have access to the membersonly videos and tutorials, especially regarding Freedom of Information Act, public records request, and privacy act request. We go into full detail of that. also some involving blockchain smart contracts and some coding to do some sample smart contracts such as uh uh crowdfunding and uh insurance and some other types of aspects but just very simplified uh foundational types of contracts to see how they actually work on the blockchain, how they're set up and how they get the feedback and interaction and how they're finally executed.

[00:08:46][snorts] And finally, we got the uh uh live streams with the open panels of course where the validator level will have access. We'll have some open panels where we can actually excuse me participate with uh two or more guests and actually have some online live conversations and of course all the perks from the previous levels there.

[00:09:08]Oh, and also be prevent uh some of the presentations here. We'll have downloadable notes for the some of the accompanying demonstrations here and presentations so that you'll have a little takeaway for those too at the validator level. All right, now I guess we got some people coming in. We'll move along to the presentation. Let's get started.

[00:09:33]All righty.

[00:09:36]So, we'll also be going over here with the uh jurisdiction in the second part.

[00:09:41]in general the constitutional and statutory basis for jurisdiction with both state and federal. We'll be going over the lower courts also the powers of state courts and federal district courts to issue writ of mandamus and finally the appellet courts and the original jurisdiction of appellet courts and courts of last resort and the standards of review. So we're going to be covering this in full starting with part one.

[00:10:05]We'll go over the definition, nature, burden of proof and the extraordinary character and distinctions of the mandamus.

[00:10:14]So the definition mandamus means we command from the Latin.

[00:10:20]It's a judicial not an administrative remedy commanding performance in limited circumstances to achieve limited purposes. So all these have to be uh within the boundaries of orders but it's a judicial remedy. It's not administrative. So it has teeth. Here are some of the key concepts. A mandamus is a civil action not an administrative one. It is a judicial remedy invoked in limited circumstances again to achieve limited purposes.

[00:10:54]It grants a higher court supervisory authority over lower bodies. So here we get involvement from higher courts.

[00:11:05]It commands an inferior court, tribunal, board, corporation or person to perform a particular duty required by law.

[00:11:19]So let's look at this here. We command performance of a particular duty required by law. That's the essential meaning. Think of mandamus as a court issued command directed downward from [clears throat] a higher court to an inferior court, a tribunal, board, corporation or person to perform a duty that the law has already established. So we can see where contracts could even come into this here. All right. So very broadreaching [clears throat and cough] again a civil action not administrative and it's requiring performance uh commanding performance to be specific. Let's look at the nature and the purpose here. The core purpose of the mandamus is a remedy at law whose purpose is to execute not adjudicate established legal rights in an expeditious manner.

[00:12:16]So again this is something where it's uh not establishing uh the law it's a remedy law for established legal rights.

[00:12:26]Mandamus strives to promote justice and to prevent irreparable harm.

[00:12:32]A rid of mandamus serves only to prevent injury not to remedy it. Now this is key to prevent. So this is extraordinary.

[00:12:42]A rid of mandamus will not be issued temporarily.

[00:12:47]Wow. And a mandamus is not a punitive remedy. It merely protects civil rights and prevents unconstitutional conduct. Very powerful writ caution.

[00:13:04]The mandamus will not enforce a right which is of no practical benefit to the petitioner or when the issuance of the writ would be useless or unenforcable. So it has to be within the jurisdiction of the court to enforce.

[00:13:22]All right. Additional principles here.

[00:13:25]Mandamus does not require a particular outcome although it must indicate the precise thing to be done.

[00:13:33]So again, a thing is the subject matter of a right or an interest. So again, this takes us back. It has to be a right that's of practical benefit to the petitioner.

[00:13:47]The writ is designed to compel action by the defendant, to enforce an established right, and to enforce a corresponding imperative duty created or imposed by law. So there's a duty required by law that needs to be performed and this is a way to enforce it from a higher authority.

[00:14:09]All right, let's get section three in the burden of proof. Who carries the burden of proof? The party seeking relief. The petitioner carries both the burden to establish standing and the burden of proof as to every element necessary to obtain mandamus.

[00:14:27]So here are the elements the petitioner must establish. We have three major elements. Subject matter jurisdiction, of course, the court's authority to hear the action and of course be able to prescribe a remedy. Uh two, the notice to interested parties. All parties affected must receive proper notice. So this is a burden.

[00:14:48]And three, the lack of an alternate alternate remedy. So no other adequate remedy at law is available. So alternative remedies are usually frowned upon but in the case of a mandamus if there is an alternative remedy then that needs to be exhausted before the mandamus.

[00:15:06]So as we see here with our observation that this burden has been characterized as a heavy one.

[00:15:16]All right let's look at the supplement cases. Here we have the illustrative authority on the petitioner's burden.

[00:15:21]Here it is. To show itself entitled to Mandamus, a realtor must show that one, the trial court clearly abuses discretion and [clears throat] two, the realtor has no adequate remedy by appeal that came from Austin Commercial Contractors versus Carter and Bergus, Texas 2011.

[00:15:44]We have a two-prong test and this is from Texas. One is a clear abuse of discretion. The trial court clearly abused this discretion in the underlying ruling. And two, the second prong, no adequate appellet remedy. The realtor has no adequate remedy by way of an ordinary appeal.

[00:16:04]So there it is, two burdens of a two-prong test.

[00:16:09]Now let's look at the extraordinary character of mandamus. It's a remedy of last resort.

[00:16:18]We'll see this theme replay. Mandamus is an unusual and extraordinary remedy which the courts issue only as a last resort.

[00:16:27]It is not a common means of obtaining redress.

[00:16:31]So it's not a common means. The distinguishing concepts are it's unusual. The mandamus is not the standard route of obtaining redress. It sits outside ordinary civil practice.

[00:16:46]It's extraordinary the courts issue mandamus only as a last resort after ordinary remedies have proven unavailable and it's rare available only in rare cases when the parties stand to lose their substantial rights which may not be so rare these days. So let's look at the four element test for man Damus right duty >> says I pray I may find relief as my last resort >> well as long as we have this a very powerful uh remedy here when it can be used. So we have here the four element test for mandamus. The right, the duty, the remedy, and the jurisdiction.

[00:17:35]And I want to mention here, yeah, thanks for uh I notice we got the uh emoji here of the channel membership. Thanks for that. We got the quill and the inkwell here and the ledger over here. So, this is something that's definitely noteworthy and a good way to link it here into the chat. So, you can always get back to it if you watch a replay to see where these parts are. This is a very important part here. We have four elements, right, duty, remedy, and jurisdiction. So, one, there's a clear legal right. Remember, the legal right has to be there before the mandamus.

[00:18:11]Two, there's an imperative duty plus the refusal. So a duty required by law plus a refusal to perform the duty. There's no other adequate remedy like no ordinary appeal or anything like that and properly invoked jurisdiction. Again the court has to have jurisdictional authority to be able to deliver a remedy.

[00:18:38]All right. Again the distinguishing concepts from other types of remedies.

[00:18:43]is unusual, extraordinary, and rare. So, think about these as a backdrop and then the four elements, the right, the duty, remedy, and jurisdiction. And if you could fit them all together, then it looks like it might be a good case for mandamus. Let's look at some of the extraordinary character cases here. We have exparte L & D transportation, I think they're in Alaska, 2011.

[00:19:11]A rid of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is appropriate when the petitioner can show one a clear legal right to the order sought, two an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform accompanied by a refusal to do so. And three, the lack of another adequate remedy and four properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.

[00:19:36]There's our four-prong test. Next we have state versus Martin in Alaska 2011.

[00:19:42]Oh boy had a lot going on in Alaska that year. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and the Supreme Court will not issue the rid of mandamus where the petitioner has full and adequate relief by appeal.

[00:19:55]And then we have exparte Bessemer Board of Education in Alaska.

[00:20:03]A lot of slackers it seems there as far as getting the having to push mandamus to get them to do their duties. But mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and requires a showing that there is one a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought two an imperative duty upon the respondant to perform accompanied by a refusal to do so and lack. This is the same thing as this other case. So, looks like we're uh really getting a lot of cases that are backing up this four-prong test right here. And I think that's why we're using that as our memory aid. Let's move along.

[00:20:40]>> Audit them says, "So, you can only file after the appeal."

[00:20:43]>> Only if the appeal would bring the remedy, a regular appeal.

[00:20:47]>> Audit them says according to the second supplement.

[00:20:52]>> Yeah. If if there's an appeal available that would bring remedy. Again these cases here sometimes the remedy might not there might be irreparable harm before a remedy can be uh achieved.

[00:21:05]Therefore the mandamments might be the appropriate action at that time. These are things that of course would have to be uh by the case and it have to be argued uh nonetheless. Here we have this case here where we're looking at the exact same thing again in Alaska. I wonder if this is all the same judge that just was doing boilerplate here. We have the four-prong test again.

[00:21:26]Again, uh lack of another adequate remedy. And once again, four-point test, a clear legal right. So, we got a lot of cases here. This is 2010 in Alaska, properly invoked jurisdiction, lack of another adequate remedy, imperative duty, clear legal right. All right, enough of that. Let's move along. Here's our section five the remedy in personum because mandamus runs against the person not the office.

[00:21:57]So it's a personal obligation in personum against the individual.

[00:22:04]Mandamus is a personal obligation of the individual to whom it is addressed.

[00:22:10]The respondent has neglected or refused to perform a personal duty. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to that duty's performance and mandamus affects the defendant personally.

[00:22:25]Now it's not against the office. It's not an action in remandus does not affect the defendant's office.

[00:22:34]It is not an action in rem that is it is not directed at a thing or against an official position itself.

[00:22:43]The remedy is targeted at the person who has refused to perform the personal duty owed.

[00:22:50]And the mandamus targets the person, not the office, not the property, not the position.

[00:22:59]Distinguished from the other remedies here in section six, it's an equitable remedy akin to specific performance, but distinct from many others. So mandamus is not a substitute for preventative remedies, future harm remedies. Now to prevent as we saw before uh but there's future harm remedies. is not a substitute for these or retroactive remedies, interlocul interlocatory appeals, administrative appeals, rits of error, habius corpus, declaratory judgment actions or direct appeals. So we have administrative appeals, indirect appeals, interlocatory appeals, uh preventative remedies, future harm remedies, which I wonder where those would fall under. Retroactive remedies, habius corpus, and direct appeals. We already went over all these here. So these are not mandamus is not a substitute for any of those. So injunction versus a mandamus. An injunction restrains injurious acts. It requires undoing of injurious acts. It restores the status quo. That's what an injunction does to restore the status quo. But the mandamus, it commands the performance of a particular duty resting on a defendant respondent by operation of law or because of official status.

[00:24:34]So injunctions requires undoing of injurious acts and restores the status quo or restrains injurious acts. Whereas mandamus commands the performance of a particular duty. Remember there is a refusal of duty that causes the uh deprivation of rights.

[00:24:58]So it's resting on a defendant or respondent by operation of law or because of official status. So that has to be the the root uh force of what the duty or performance is required to do that they're refusing to do and the plaintiff has to be directly involved with deprivation of rights due to that non-performance.

[00:25:22]on to section two or part [clears throat] two here the dis the jurisdiction and power to issue. All right, let's look at this with the lower courts and the appellet courts of last resort.

[00:25:35]So section seven generally the jurisdiction power to issue jurisdiction is a threshold requirement. So there's a source of jurisdiction has to issue jurisdiction to issue the rid of mandamus may be conferred by constitution or statute. So check the source of jurisdiction for mandamus in your state or jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction mandamus directed to an individual or board is issued in the exercise of the court's original jurisdiction.

[00:26:12]Wow. and loss of jurisdiction. Even where a court has jurisdiction, it may be divested if the plaintiff fails to satisfy a proof requirement or fails to properly plead mandamus.

[00:26:26]Wow. So, we have territorial limitations. Mandamus is subject to territorial limitations. Mandamus does not apply to persons who are not present in the state. Wow. So, you have to be present in the state for it to apply.

[00:26:41]and mandamus cannot be invoked to compel the performance of an act which cannot be performed within the state.

[00:26:50]All right. So territorial limitations.

[00:26:55]Then state and federal court jurisdiction. There's a crossreach system that's strictly limited. State courts to federal officers. No jurisdiction. State courts have no jurisdiction to direct a rid of mandamus to a federal officer. Federal courts to state entities, they will not issue. A mandamus will not issue from a federal court to a state state court or its officers or court officials.

[00:27:22]A federal district court therefore cannot issue mandamus directing a state court to rule on a pending habius corpus matter.

[00:27:33]two can uh cannot require a state court to issue a decree and a federal district court cannot direct a state agency in the performance of its duties. So the observation here is this rule applies to the federal courts of appeals.

[00:27:53]So we see here the jurisdiction in the lower courts and state courts the general power of state courts to issue mandamus. You see here the federal courts don't have much room but the state courts generally possess the power to issue mandamus absent statutory or constitutional restrictions and a state court's power to issue mandamus will not be disturbed merely because jurisdiction lies for an appeal to a higher court. So a state's power to issue will not be disturbed merely because jurisdiction does lie for an appeal. So the observation the legislature cannot generally enlarge or abridge a constitutional authority conferred on courts to issue Ritz mandamus. State courts have no jurisdiction to direct a rid of mandamus to a federal officer.

[00:28:44]All right. Now we're on the federal district courts statutory mandamus authority. This is from 28 USC 1361. The unequivocal violation of a statute regulation imposing a duty on a federal official can be rectified by mandamus. So here's the grant of jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction over mandamus actions under statute.

[00:29:10]Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

[00:29:25]So federal district courts have original jurisdiction for their officers of federal officers here employees of the United States or agency. So our observations the purpose of the statute to grant federal courts the jurisdiction to issue writers that the claim made is clear and certain and the duty of the federal officer is ministerial and so plainly described as to be free from doubt. Okay. So as long as we know whose authority and whose roles they are within that jurisdiction there the statutory mandamus authority for the federal district courts and here are their limits. What the mandamus statute does not do it does not wave the sovereign immunity of the United States in an action against the United States cannot be maintained as a mandamus proceeding simply by recasting the action as one against an officer.

[00:30:20]Wow, they get themselves well insulated there. It seems does not apply if an alternate remedy exists. It does not create a cause of action. It does not direct how discretionary acts are to be performed. And it may not be used as a means of obtaining injunctive or declaratory relief. And we saw that before that the uh these are not substitutes. And a practice tip here or the mandam is not a substitute for those. And [snorts] a practice tip, the statute does not confer federal jurisdiction but merely supplies a permissible remedy when subject matter jurisdiction already exists. So it does not confer but supplies a permissible remedy. And a reminder, a district court cannot issue mandamus directing a state court to rule on a pending habius corpus matter. nor can it require a state court to issue a decree or a direct a state agency in the performance of its duties.

[00:31:22]Doesn't mean that they don't have authority to do that but just not through mandamus.

[00:31:28]So here's our supplement cases. The United States claims court having been created under article one of the United States Constitution rather than article 3 is not a district court within the scope of 28 USC 1361 and that was from 1983.

[00:31:44]That's interesting there. The United States claims court having been created under article one is not a district court.

[00:31:56]I think this is in the Virgin Islands if I'm not mistaken.

[00:32:00]But if anyone wants to pipe up in the chat if they know where that United States claims court uh created under article one, not under article three.

[00:32:12]All right. Interesting little tidbit there from American Jurist Prudence.

[00:32:16]Let's proceed. We're on a part two now in section C. The appellet courts and the courts of last resort, their power to issue when the issues concurrent jurisdiction and our standard of review.

[00:32:33]So the power to issue the writing the courts of last resort can issue mandamus. So source one is constitutional. The authority to issue rits of mandamus may be controlled by a state constitution.

[00:32:50]So look at your state constitution.

[00:32:52]Maybe source two is statutory. A statute may vest the appellet court with original jurisdiction to issue rits of mandamus and in some cases restrict it to a particular court. So again, if you don't see something in your constitution, your state constitution, look to the statutes. And finally, there's always the common law. In some jurisdictions, an appellet court's power to issue rits of mandamus is vested from the common law, inherent and necessary to the exercise of its appellet function. So our observation is the power of the appellet court is not dependent on the court's appellet jurisdiction. The power is part of the appellet court's original jurisdiction and is not merely auxiliary to the court's appellet jurisdiction.

[00:33:40]Wow.

[00:33:42]So there it is. You have three sources here how the appellet courts can issue mandamus.

[00:33:51]There's constitutional authority, statutory, and common law. So three places to look to find that authority.

[00:33:58]Let's move along. And when the appellet courts is will issue the writ there's three recognized grounds for the appellet mandamus. One is to exercise supervisory power over the lower courts.

[00:34:11]Two is to correct abuses of jurisdiction.

[00:34:15]Wow. And third is to compel the performance of purely ministerial duties.

[00:34:22]And the same three element test as the trial court. It's a clear right in the plaintiff to the relief sought. So we have remember the involvement with the petitioner here a legal duty on the part of the respondent to act and the absence of another adequate remedy of law. So again, the same three element tests for the appellet courts as we find in the trial courts. And in those cases where the benefits of mandamus relief outweigh the detriments, an appellet court should not allow the hypertchnical application of procedural devices and constructs to thwart the rule of law and the ends of justice.

[00:35:04]So as you see here a very powerful writed and truly exceptional circumstances.

[00:35:11]Mandamus is not a substitute for an injunction. It is not an appeal. Such a writ bypasses the regular appellet process and requires significant interference with lower court's administration of justice. Appellet courts will therefore issue it only in a limited and truly exceptional circumstances when there is a clear and obvious emergency that if not addressed will result in an injustice such as so here are some of the injustices.

[00:35:41]Mandatory statute being ignored. A trial court fails to observe a mandatory statutory provision conferring a right or forbidding a particular action. Two, process interference. someone is interfering with the appelllet process itself or three public interest matter is one of great public interest and concern and the two closing principles here in a civil case the fact that the law is unsettled does not affect whether the mandamus relief is available and appellet courts may only issue mandamus to enforce established rights not to create new rights as we've learned from the start here in the presentation All right, let's move along here into our supplement cases. [snorts] And for anyone that's just arrived, I believe we do have the talking chat enabled. If you have any questions, comments, or clarifications, just pipe up in the chat. It should read it back.

[00:36:40]>> The crime says, hit the like.

[00:36:42]>> Yes, indeed. And it looks like our latency is low, so it should be running smooth. Let's move along.

[00:36:50]So our first case, Mahoney versus McDonald Burkeman in Kentucky 2010. A rid of mandamus or prohibition may be granted upon showing that one the lower court is proceeding or about to proceed outside of his jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court. or two, that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise, and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted.

[00:37:30]And we have also the uh Enray Suarez [snorts] in Texas, Dallas, 2008.

[00:37:38]Mandamus lie to correct a void order. An example, an order that the trial court had no power or jurisdiction to render.

[00:37:50]So this is a good one here. Mandamus will lie to correct avoid order. Here are two recurring themes to all these cases we just read. One, jurisdictional excess by the lower court and two void orders. the lower court had no power to render.

[00:38:09]So two very powerful recurring themes and this is for when appellet courts issue rits of mandamus.

[00:38:20]All right, let's go into the concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction here with appellet courts. The general rule is that jurisdiction in courts of last resort to issue ritz of mandamus is generally not exclusive. Multiple courts may have authority to entertain a mandamus petition at the same time, but there are consequences of concurrent jurisdiction. The higher court may still take the case. The existence of concurrent jurisdiction is not necessarily grounds for a refusal by the higher court to assume original jurisdiction in the matter.

[00:38:54]So, uh, just because there's another petition in a different court, the higher court, uh, is not necessarily ground for them to refuse.

[00:39:06]And two, some jurisdictions bar declination. Wow. In some jurisdictions, it is not constitutionally permissible for an appellet court to decline jurisdiction when mandamus is available in a lower court.

[00:39:22]So, there it is. Check your jurisdiction, see which applies. Now, let's look at our standard of review in the state appellet courts.

[00:39:31]And we're coming close to the end, so make sure you stay to the end because we have a very special surprise there. So, uh, stay tuned. A state appellet court conducts a denovo review of a trial court's issuance or denial of a writ of mandamus. So, from the start, review. So reviews everything in the record and basically runs the trial again according to the law. Uh so they uh conducts a denovo review of a trial court's issuance or denial of a rid of mandamus. Wow. So the practice tip here is mandamus invokes a trial court's equitable jurisdiction.

[00:40:08]Remember, this is a jurisdiction that the court has uh equitable relief available where it can compel someone to perform or to refrain and therefore the appellet court will examine the entire >> says smash that like.

[00:40:26]>> Yes, indeed.

[00:40:30]>> Yes, this is some pretty important stuff to know. Uh again when we find that uh people that have a duty to perform especially a duty for the public uh there's a public interest and private interests that are affected. So it's important for this extraordinary uh remedy here to be available.

[00:40:51][snorts] All right. So uh it will not uh okay so the appellet court will examine the entire record but it will not overturn its decision unless persuaded that the decision is arbitrary and capriccious or that the court abused its discretion.

[00:41:08]So this is these are pretty uh you got to persuade them that the decision was arbitrary or capriccious or it abused discretion. Similarly, to determine whether a court of appeals improperly granted mandamus relief, the state supreme court focuses on whether the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. And if the trial court did not abuse his discretion, then the court of appeals aired in granting mandamus relief. So, woo, red flag right there.

[00:41:38]Did the trial court abuse its discretion? because if it did not then there's no uh then the court appeals would be aired in granting a mandamus relief. So a review of administrative agencies here the mandamus review may be limited to facts that were before the trial court a court of appeals may not resolve factual disputes in a mandamus proceeding.

[00:42:03]However, where an administrative agency's act depends solely on the cor correct interpretation of a statute, that is a question of law on which the court exercises independent judgment, guided by the principle that an agency's interpretation of controlling statutes will be accorded great respect and followed if not clearly erroneous. Now I know we have this was uh 2011 of American juristp prudence and I know that chevron deference uh being overturned there it makes a big difference in some of these types of agency interpretations. Uh but I digress. Uh again I did a whole uh live stream on that on the review and the changes that came about from that and how it affected the juristp prudence too. So we do a real deep dive on that.

[00:42:54]can't recall the name of the I think it's the administrative act procedures act administrative procedures act would be the title in there so you could always search the channel and find it that's a great video there and uh has some current documents and just before that case when it was still a question and the way it was being questioned so a good way to have a full insight onto that let's move along to section 14 here in the supplement cases we have West Chandler Boulevard neighborhood association versus city of Los Angeles in 2011.

[00:43:26]In reviewing an agency's decision under administrative mandamus statute, the trial court determines whether one, the agency proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction, and two, there was a fair hearing, and three, the agency abused its discretion.

[00:43:44]So that's the trial court determines those things, those three things. So it's a three factor administrative mandamus inquiry. jurisdiction. The agency proceed without or excess jurisdiction. Was there a fair hearing?

[00:43:58]And three, did the agency abuse its discretion? So, we have our three factor administrative mandamus inquiry courtesy of California.

[00:44:08]All right, let's get to our key takeaways here and crystallize that doctrine of mandamus. It's a four element test. We learn here from very much repetition from the Alaska cases.

[00:44:19]There's a right, the clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought.

[00:44:25]Two, there's a duty, an imperative duty upon the respondent acquired by law.

[00:44:30]Remember, plus the refusal to perform that duty.

[00:44:34]Three, the remedy. There could be no other adequate remedy at law.

[00:44:40]And four, jurisdiction properly invoke jurisdiction of the court. So, they can provide the remedy. They have the authority to do that. All right.

[00:44:48]It's an extraordinary remedy. It's issued only as a last resort. Last resort in rare cases is in personum. It targets the person, not the office or the property. It compels, not restrains.

[00:45:06]If the goal is to stop conduct, seek an injunction instead.

[00:45:12]Enforces. It doesn't create. The mandamus enforces established rights only.

[00:45:19]It's a heavy burden. Petitioner carries every element characterized as a heavy burden and territorial. It cannot reach persons not present in the state.

[00:45:32]So there it is. Mandamus we command.

[00:45:38]Which takes us to the best part of the presentation for those of you here.

[00:45:41]We're going to do the mandamus quiz. is a fun quiz here to do a knowledge check with four realworld scenarios. Each one will have only one correct answer and we'll go over the answers at the end with explanations.

[00:45:54]All right, so let's play this game here.

[00:45:57]Here's how we'll do this. In the chat, you put the number of the question you're answering followed by the letter of the answer you choose. And if you want to choose it, just put that same question number in again followed by a different letter of an answer. Important you put the number of the question with a letter so we know which question you're answering so we can tally up the end. Test the knowledge. Let's get started. Question one. Here's our scenario. Marina is in sense when the state department of motor vehicles. No kidding. Uh denies her requested vanity license plate. Mandimus.

[00:46:32]She immediately files a petition for rid of Vanamus in state court to compel the agency to issue the plate.

[00:46:40]While the petition is pending, her second choice plate becomes available and Marina accepts and installs it on her car. She wants the mandamus action to continue. Anyways, she is still furious with the agency and wants to make a point. How should the court rule on her petition?

[00:47:00]A grant the writ because Marina's motives in seeking mandamus are immaterial to the age and the agency violated a statutory duty.

[00:47:09]>> Lexima says many are saying holy men damn on us. This was a glorious presentation. Hope that drive digs deeper into these topics.

[00:47:17]>> Indeed. Well, thank you and I'm glad to appreciate here because uh some might say these are not as uh engaging as some of the crazy drama on the YouTube channels, but uh indeed this is something where it touches to the heart of what we study here. So, appreciate that feedback. All right, so here are our answers. A is a grant the writ uh because it's agency violated statutory duty. B. Grant the writ because the mandamus is a punitive remedy that vindicates the petitioner's outrage at the agency's conduct. Is it C deny the writ because mandamus will not enforce a right which is of no practical benefit to the petitioner? Or Deny the writ because Marina's hostile motives in pressing the petition disqualify her from equitable relief.

[00:48:05]So which is it now? Marina accepted and installed the alternate uh the second choice plate.

[00:48:11]>> Jos a figure of 5,227 says one.

[00:48:16]>> Lexima says 1 A.

[00:48:18]>> We got two for one A. All right. So grant the RIT because her motives are immaterial [clears throat] and the agency violated a statutory duty. Good. [snorts] Now [clears throat] remember she did accept and install an alternative remedy here. her second choice plate. So, let's move along. Any other people want to answer on question one? Going once, going twice, we're on to question two.

[00:48:45]Here's our scenario. After being denied social security disability benefits, James files a petition in his local state trial court.

[00:48:53]>> Says one.

[00:48:54]>> All right, so we have three for for a good consensus there.

[00:49:00][clears throat] All right. So, James is denied his social security disability benefits. So, he files a petition in his local state trial court asking the court to issue a randamus directing the federal social security administration's regional director to award his claim. The state court should a hold a hearing on the merits because state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue rits of mandamus.

[00:49:27]B. Refuse to act because the state courts have no jurisdiction to direct a rid of mandamus to a federal officer. C.

[00:49:36]Transfer the case to the federal district court which alone may entertain mandamus against any government officer.

[00:49:43]Or D. Grant the writ only if James can demonstrate that no alternative alternate alternate alternate administrative remedy is available to him.

[00:49:54]So James denies benefits. Uh he goes to a >> figure of 5,227 says 2C.

[00:50:05]>> All right. So we have a 2C to transfer the case to federal district court where they which alone may entertain the mandamus against any government officer which indeed a district court would have uh that reach so to speak. But he filed his petition in a local state trial court uh directing the federal administration >> says to >> and we have a 2A hold the hearing on the merits. All right. Anyone else wants to take a try at question two?

[00:50:43]We're asking what the state court should do >> says 2D.

[00:50:50]>> All right. uh grant threat only if James can demonstrate no alternate al administrative remedy. All right. So this is social security administration.

[00:51:02]But again it's federal.

[00:51:05]So it's uh brings in that question there. But let's continue. Let's go on to question three. Good answers from everyone though. And this is a difficult question on purpose. All right. Let's get to question three. A neighborhood association learns that the city zoning board is scheduled to vote next week on a permit for a high-rise development next to a historic park. The association files a petition for rid of mandamus asking the court to order the zoning board not to approve the permit.

[00:51:37]Setting aside any question of standing, what is a fundamental problem with the filing? So this is definitely a problem with the filing here not to approve the permit. A the zoning board's permit vote is a discretionary act. Therefore no extraordinary writ may ever issue against it. B the mandamus statute reaches only federal officials. So a state zoning board falls outside scope.

[00:52:04]C. What is really being sought is an injunction not a mandamus. Mandamus commands the performance of a duty and does not restrain action or D.

[00:52:17]Neighborhood associations are categorically barred from petitioning for extraordinary rits in state court.

[00:52:23]All right. So what is the fundamental problem with the filing? Is it a that the permit vote is a discretionary act and they can't ever issue a writ?

[00:52:36]Is it the mandamus statute reaches only federal officials?

[00:52:40]Uh is it C? What is really being sought is an injunction.

[00:52:46]>> J2T says it's C.

[00:52:50]>> Yes, Genghaskhan. Greetings and welcome.

[00:52:52]It's uh yeah, what is really being sought seems like an injunction, but you could also say that it's saying board not to approve. It's not not to not hold the vote, but to not approve a permit.

[00:53:04]But then again, it's saying to restrain an action. So perhaps that could be right. And finally, the neighborhood associations are categorically barred.

[00:53:12]So all right. So good good answer there.

[00:53:14]Anyone else wants to take a try at question three?

[00:53:18]Ceable response, but let's move on to question four.

[00:53:24]>> Jaws a figure of 5,227 says 3C.

[00:53:29]>> All right.

[00:53:30]So we're building a little consensus there for C. All right. So, question four. Here's our scenario. Carlos's civil trial concludes with a routine evidentiary ruling against him that he believes was wrong, but well, within the trial court's discretion. The case is now over and the final judgment has been entered. The ordinary appellet process is fully available to Carlos. Frustrated by the weight, he files an original petition for ridandamus in the court of appeals asking it to vacate the evidentiary ruling. How should the court of appeals rule? A.

[00:54:11]Issue the writ because mandamus exists to execute legal rights in an expeditious manner. B. Issue the writ because mandamus serves as a substitute for direct appeals when the petitioner prefers a faster route.

[00:54:26]Yeah. Uh three uh C decline the writ because Carlos has an adequate remedy by appeal and the absence of another adequate remedy is an essential element of mandamus or diss issue the writ because the trial court's ruling was within its discretion and therefore presumptively erroneous.

[00:54:50]Hm.

[00:54:52]So, this one here is actually meant to confuse. Lots of distractor answers here. Anyone want to take a try at this one? The adequate remedy by appeal.

[00:55:02]So, again, Carlos's civil trial concludes with an routine evidentiary ruling against him. He believes it was wrong, but this was within the trial court's discretion to rule on that.

[00:55:17]The case is now over and the final judgment was entered. So he's looking for uh even though there's an ordinary appellet process fully available, he's frustrated by the wait. So he files an original petition for rid of mandamus in the court of appeals instead asking it to vacate the evidentiary ruling. So how should the court of appeals rule on this one?

[00:55:39]>> Lexa says seems very difficult, but I think for a >> Yeah. Yeah, this is a this is a difficult one too.

[00:55:49]Uh, you'd think so. D seems uh pretty difficult, too. But then you could also think to decline the RIP because he does have adequate remedy by appeal. But let's find out. Uh, I don't think anyone else wants to answer on question four.

[00:56:04]Going once, going twice. We're going to go to the answers.

[00:56:09]All right. First answer J2T says C.

[00:56:14]>> Josa figure of 5,227 says 4D.

[00:56:18]Okay, so we have a C. I take that for four, correct? And we have a D. All right, so plenty answers for this one.

[00:56:28]Let's get to the answers for question one first.

[00:56:33]Alrighty, so question one, correct answer was C.

[00:56:40]Marina's insens insensed when the department of motor vehicles denies her vanity plate but it's going to deny the writ because mandamus will mandamus will not enforce a right which is of no practical benefit to the petitioner. The caution under section two controls mandamus will not enforce a right of no practical benefit to the petitioner because once Marina took a different plate the writ would be useless.

[00:57:07][clears throat] She does it because she's angry. She's furious with the agency.

[00:57:12]So there it is. Choice A correctly notes the motives are immaterial, but that does not cure the lack of practical benefit. Choice B is wrong because a mandance is not punitive. And D inverts the rule on motives. They are immaterial either way. So C was the correct answer on question one. And let's see we got here.

[00:57:34]Yep, no one got that one. That was a tough one. All right, let's move on to question two.

[00:57:41]Oops, wrong way.

[00:57:45]All right, question two. The correct answer was B. This is after being denied his benefits, uh, James files a petition. The state court should be refuse to act because state courts have no jurisdiction to direct a rid of mandamus to a federal officer.

[00:58:02]So there it is 2B and uh again seem to uh evade everyone here as well. Section 8 states the bright line rule.

[00:58:15]State courts have no jurisdiction to direct a rid of damage to a federal officer.

[00:58:22]Choice A inverts concurrent jurisdiction that does not exist across state federal divide. Choice C describes no procedural mechanism the source recognizes. And choice D is irrelevant. When the court lacks jurisdiction over the respondent, the alternate remedy element is never reached. So there it is. They can't act federally from the state court. So they're going to refuse to act. All right, let's move along to question three. Correct answer was C. So the neighborhood association learns the zoning board scheduled and they file a petition for Ramand Damus. What's the fundamental problem? The fundamental problem is what is really being sought is an injunction, not a mandamus. And I think we got excellent.

[00:59:08]I think everyone got this one correct here. 43.

[00:59:17]Indeed. So, yeah, this was the easy one.

[00:59:20]I'm glad everyone got that one. But now, let's get on to question four.

[00:59:30]And here we are with question four.

[00:59:33]Correct answer was C. Carlos's civil trial concludes with a routine evidentiary ruling against him. He's impatient for the petition in the uh appellet court. So he files a petition for ridandamus in the court of appeals asking it to vacate but they decline the writ because Carlos has an adequate remedy by appeal. And the absence of another adequate remedy is an essential element of andamus but he has one. So for four >> says Jenhus J2t rocked the quiz show >> definitely and I think this was for uh for question four. So yeah Genghaskhan definitely uh is the one that got [snorts] the best results here. Again this is a very difficult quiz. I don't expect anyone to really have that kind of uh grasp on this or otherwise you really wouldn't be here on the channel watching this if you knew all these answers. We're here to learn and to test our knowledge and this is the way we really sharpen that uh saw so to speak by finding out where the edges are in our knowledge and how we refine those edges. And this is the way to do it by going through the routine. And I appreciate everyone being here for the heavy lifting of doing the reading which takes us to the end of the presentation here where we uh encourage everyone to please like, subscribe, hit that bell notification so that can all participate in the ongoing discussions we have here as we focus more deeply into different elements here of American jurist prudence, law, logic and our history. So I appreciate you all for being here.

[01:01:08]Please join the memberships if you want to get some more benefits from the channel and I will be enhancing those levels and a new level coming up soon with real interaction there where we should start to see some uh uh be able to actually apply these changes in the real world for ourselves and for the people around us and society in general.

[01:01:26]So I thank you all for being here and I hope to see you all on the next one.

[01:01:30]Peace out.

[01:01:34]Lexa Nima says right on broad of the tribe. Thanks, man.

[01:01:40][music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Today, [music] [music] >> [music]