RE: [tips_and_tricks] When adequate compensation can't be had at law...
> But it has been well settled, that, when a plain official duty,The problem is that people have to have the initiative (guts) to go for
> requiring no exercise of discretion, is to be performed, and
> performance is refused, any person who will sustain personal injury by
> such refusal may have a mandamus to compel its performance; and when
> such duty is threatened to be violated by some positive official act,
> any person who will sustain personal injury thereby, for which
> adequate compensation cannot be had at law, may have an injunction to
> prevent it. In such cases, the writs of mandamus and injunction are
> somewhat correlative to each other. In either case, if the officer
> plead the authority of an unconstitutional law for the non-performance
> or violation of his duty, it will not prevent the issuing of the writ.
> An unconstitutional law will 14*14 be treated by the courts as null
> and void;" citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States and Davis v.
> Gray. Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 US 1, 13-14 (1891).
the writ in a timely fashion. When they do, they realize the power they
Here, they call them writs of mandate and prohibition. Mandate makes
them perform a duty; prohibition stops them from taking an action.
There can be no discretion involved.
I once used a writ of mandate very effectively. It was like I was the
prosecutor and the judge was the defendant. Lots of fun! It's your
power to make sure things are done right. Waive it, and you might