Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 124 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Anchor | green | “the operative word, 'adequate,' has no comprehensive definition; it is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of lower courts.” | 28 |
| 2 | In Re Puig | green | “has tried to give more concrete direction for determining the availability of mandamus review, rigid rules are necessarily inconsistent with the flexibility that is the remedy's principal virtue.” | 24 |
| 3 | In Re Puig | green | “noted that the improper denial of a plea in abatement may, on occasion, warrant mandamus relief.” | 24 |
| 4 | Hines v. Hash | green | “defendant may wait until appeal from the final judgment to seek review of a denial of abatement, but the trial court's error must be shown to have been harmful to obtain reversal.” | 24 |
| 5 | Hines v. Hash | green | “defendant is entitled, but not obliged, to seek review of a denial of abatement by mandamus.” | 24 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.