Other uses Prerogative writs A writ of mandamus or mandamus which means we command in Latin IPA en man de m s ... Dictionary, p. 980, 8th Ed., St. Paul, USA, 2004. ref Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form .... ref It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus ... and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person ... for the writ of mandamus to be enforced should be able to show that he has a legal right to compel ... have two qualities ref RK Choudhary s Law of Writs Mandamus. ref It must be a duty of public nature ... of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific ... of a statutory duty or where an illegal or unconstitutional order is made. The grant of mandamus ... Education, UT Chandigarh, 1990 1 RSJ 126. ref Mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the application ..., bar the issue of mandamus. The petitioner must, of course, satisfy the Court that he has the legal ... v. Laxminarayan, 1970 MPLJ Note 6. ref A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority ... not been performed. In no other case will a writ of mandamus issue unless it be to quash an illegal order. Types There are three kinds of mandamus Alternative Mandamus A mandamus issued upon the first ... before the court at a specified time to show cause for not performing it. Peremptory Mandamus An absolute ... defaults on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative mandamus. ref http legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com peremptory writ of mandamus Legal Dictionary . ref ref http law.mongabay.com news peremptory writ of mandate.html Mongabay.com . ref Continuing Mandamus A Mandamus ... Under the Australian legal system, mandamus is available through section 75 v of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Australian Constitution . In England and Wales, mandamus was originally known as a writ of mandamus and more recently as an order of mandamus . This procedure ... more details
Mandamus may refer to Mandamus or writ of mandamus , one of the prerogative writs in common law Mandamus River in New Zealand disambig ... more details
Infobox River river name Mandamus River image name image size caption origin Organ Range mouth Hurunui River basin countries New Zealand length km length elevation m elevation mouth elevation m mouth elevation discharge m3 s discharge watershed km2 watershed Mandamus River is a river in the South Island of New Zealand . ref LINZ 21805 2008 08 23 ref The headwaters are on the southern side of the Organ Range and it feeds into the Hurunui River 25 kilometers due west of Culverden . ref cite map publisher Land Information New Zealand title 260 M33 Waikari url http www.linz.govt.nz topography topo maps nz med scale maps nz260 map series pm33 index.aspx edition 2003 section accessdate 2008 08 24 ref References reflist coord 42.7635 S 172.5498 E display title Category Rivers of the Canterbury Region CanterburyNZ geo stub ... more details
Continuing Mandamus is a writ of Mandamus issued to a lower authority by the higher authority in general public interest asking the officer or the authority to perform its task expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of justice . The concept of Continuing Mandamus has been discussed and dealt with in the respective cases of Vineet Narain v. Union of India ref Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 3386 ref and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. ref Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 ref When a petition is filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court of India Supreme Court or the High Court respectively, the court can issue the writ of Mandamus in the interest of general public welfare. The facts and circumstances of the cases were of utmost public importance, and the increasing need for preservation of democracy and egalitarianism equality in this society. The investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the Government agencies. The Courts, in these cases did not concern themselves with the accusations on a meritorious basis, but only by the due performance of the duties and obligations on the part of the government agencies to fairly, fully and properly investigate into every such accusation against every person, and to take the logical final action in accordance with the law. If the charge sheet is filed against the relevant person in the competent court, the court shall deal with the case in accordance with the laws. In case, a prima facie case cannot be made out against an individual, it should be closed and quickly submitted to the court for its satisfaction that the concerned authorities have not come to a conclusion. The court ... more details
Prerogative writs A peremptory writ of mandamus also peremptory writ of mandate or simply peremptory mandamus is an absolute and unqualified writ a formal written command to the defendant to do the act in question. It is issued when the defendant default s on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative mandamus . It is one of the three types of a mandamus . A more exact definition of a peremptory writ of mandate is a final order of a court to any governmental body, government official or a lower court to perform an act the court finds is an official duty required by law. ref name Legal Dictionary http legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com peremptory writ of mandate Legal Dictionary ref ref name Law Dictionary http dictionary.law.com default2.asp?selected 1502&bold 7C 7C 7C 7C Law Dictionary ref Distinguishing from other kinds of mandamus A peremptory writ of mandate is distinguished from an alternative writ of mandate mandamus , which orders the governmental agency, court or officials to obey the order or show cause at a hearing why it should not. ref name Legal Dictionary ref name Law Dictionary This may also be distinguished from a Continuing Mandamus , which asks for an officer or other authority to perform its tasks expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of justice. ref See Vineet Narain v. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 3386. ref Practice tips The usual practice is for anyone desiring such an order is to file a petition for the alternative writ. If the officials do not comply with the order and fail to convince the court that the writ of mandate should not be issued, then the court will issue the peremptory writ. In some emergency situations or when there is no conceivable reason for the government not to follow the law, then the peremptory writ will be issued after a notice of hearing without the alternative ... www.assembly.state.ny.us leg and go to CVP . ref References reflist See also Mandamus Prohibition ... more details
Infobox River river name Glencoe River image name image size caption origin Organ Range mouth Mandamus River basin countries New Zealand length elevation mouth elevation discharge watershed The Glencoe River is a river in the Canterbury Region of New Zealand . It arises in the Organ Range near Shale Peak and flows south into the Mandamus River . ref cite book title Reed New Zealand Atlas year 2004 isbn 0 7900 0952 8 author Peter Dowling editor publisher Reed Books pages map 71 ref See also List of rivers of New Zealand References reflist http www.linz.govt.nz placenames search index.aspx Land Information New Zealand Search for Place Names coord 42 45 9 S 172 33 9 E display title region NZ type river source GNS enwiki scale 100000 Category Hurunui District Category Rivers of the Canterbury Region CanterburyNZ geo stub ... more details
. Mandamus has been replaced in the United States district court s and many state trial courts by injunction ..., which issue writs of mandamus to lower courts and administrative hearing panels, while some state systems still allow trial courts to issue writs of mandamus or mandate directly to government officials ... more details
college being Nonjuring schism nonjurors , a peremptory mandamus was issued against him requiring him to eject them. Gower defended his Fellows he refused on the ground that the mandamus should not have ... assizes , but the grand jury threw out the bill. A mandamus nisi issued in the following October ... that it did not appear who they were, and the court of king s bench declined to make the mandamus ... more details
Infobox River river name Dove River image name image size caption origin mouth Mandamus River basin countries New Zealand length elevation convert 1400 m ft mouth elevation convert 350 m ft discharge watershed The Dove River is a river in the Canterbury region of New Zealand . It rises near Mt Te Kooti and runs southward, draining the Big Island Hills to its west and the Tekoa Range to the east. ref New Zealand 1 50000 Topographic Map Series sheet BU24 Hanmer Springs ref References reflist Canterbury geo stub Category Rivers of the Canterbury Region coord 42 45 55 S 172 33 27 E region NZ type river display title ... more details
of 3373 of the Iowa Code, which is as follows The action of mandamus is one brought in a court ... and other proceedings in any action in which a mandamus is claimed shall be the same in all ... relief, have an order of mandamus to compel the performance of a duty established in such action. But if such duty ... subscriptions paid to it, and that mandamus will not lie for the purpose of enforcing the specific performance ... amenable to the process of mandamus, by virtue of the lease of its road, property, and franchises ... that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. It may be a question whether the remedy by mandamus is not larger ... made on condition of its original location, may not have created a corporate duty, enforceable by mandamus ... more details
where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus ... the request, forcing the Governor of Puerto Rico to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United ... unanimously that the Federal Courts did indeed have the power to enforce a writ of mandamus and that Kentucky ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance ArgueDate March 29 ArgueYear 2004 DecideDate June 14 DecideYear 2004 FullName USVol 542 USPage 55 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Scalia JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence3 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating LawsApplied Administrative Procedure Act 702, 704, 706. Although the Administrative Procedure Act says that a person may challenge an agency s failure to act, this provision essential just carries forward the writ of mandamus . Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non discretionary, discrete act. Therefore, in this case, an interest group could not challenge an agency s failure to act so as to preserve the wilderness in accordance with the statute. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542 List of United States Supreme Court cases Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 2004 in United States case law Category United States administrative case law SCOTUS case stub ... more details
Relator IPA en r le t r , female relatrix IPA en r le tr ks is the legal term meaning a private person at whose relation or in whose behalf an application for a quo warranto or mandamus is filed. ref A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Copyright c 1990 Bryan A. Garner, Oxford University Press , Inc. ref The relator appears as one beneficially interested, but the action is maintained on his behalf. The relator furnishes the knowledge or facts on which an information or a proceeding in quo warranto is based. Such a proceeding is usually in the name of the state, ex rel . ex relatione on behalf of the relator, and so is called an ex rel . action . Qui Tam action A Qui Tam Action may be brought by any party as a relator against an entity that is fraudulently collecting money from the United States government by filing false claims. The party bringing the suit the relator must have possession of information substantiating the claim of fraud against the government. The government shares a percentage of the monies collected, along with a share of treble damages and penalties if any, with the relator. The relator may be any entity including a private individual, trade association, or labor union. Congress authorized Qui Tam actions in the False Claims Act . References references Category Legal terms Category Civil procedure law term stub ... more details
of failures, Amadiro decides to accept an ambitious and unscrupulous apprentice, Levular Mandamus. Mandamus develops a cruel plan to destroy the population of the Earth by using a newly developed weapon, the nuclear intensifier . Amadiro and Mandamus intend to kill the population of the Earth and to make ... a confrontation with Amadiro and Mandamus. Fastolfe s brilliant daughter Vasilia has long coveted ... positronic robots free to deal with Amadiro. The two robots locate Amadiro and Mandamus on Earth ... suffering the consequences of such action. Now standing alone with the robots, Mandamus claims that his intentions regarding the nuclear intensifier were more benign than Amadiro s. Mandamus wants to draw ... allows Mandamus to adjust the settings of the nuclear intensifier. He extends the time scale of the radioactive ... population still exists at the time of the novel Pebble in the Sky . Next, Giskard tampers with Mandamus s mind as well, ensuring that Mandamus will have no memory of what had happened. Giskard predicts ... . However, by allowing Mandamus to proceed with his original plan, Giskard becomes instrumental ... more details
25, 1938. On May 16, 1938, the NLRB filed a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus with the U.S. ... process . ref In re Labor Board , 304 U.S. 486, 495. ref A writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus ..., Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company , 255 U.S. 273 1921 , Butler held that writs of prohibition and mandamus ... more details
Prerogative writs In common law jurisprudence , procedendo is one of the prerogative writ s. It is a writ that sends a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment. The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be. ref State ex rel. Davey v. Owen , 133 Ohio St. 96, 106 Ohio 1937 . ref The writ of procedendo ad judicium was the earliest remedy for the refusal or neglect of justice on the part of the courts. It was an original writ, issuing out of chancery to the judges of any subordinate court, commanding them in the king s name to proceed to judgment, but without specifying any particular judgment. In case of disobedience or of neglect on the part of the judges to whom it was addressed, or refusal by them to act, they were liable to punishment for contempt. Inherently, the most important limitation on this jurisdiction is that the writ of mandamus is not a proper remedy to control or direct the decisions of inferior courts in matters wherein they have judicial cognizance and discretion. In other words, so far as the writ affects the action of inferior courts, its use is not to be extended to compel the rendition of a particular judgment, in accordance with the views of a higher court. ref In re Press Printers & Publishers, Inc. , 12 F.2d 660, 664 3d Cir. 1926 ref It corresponds to certiorari , except that certiorari is a higher court s order to a lower court to send the record of a case to it for appellate review. References references Category Prerogative writs ... more details
Refimprove date January 2008 The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis is a U.S. organization founded circa 2002 to support removal of cannabis drug marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act . The group was organized immediately after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the High Times Jon Gettman petition to reschedule cannabis, ruling that the petitioners were not sufficiently injured to have standing to challenge the Drug Enforcement Administration s interpretation of the scientific record in federal court. On October 8, 2002, the Coalition filed a new petition to have cannabis rescheduled under federal law. This article needs updated. The Coalition has recently filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Carl Olsen of Iowans for Medical Marijuana, a former Coalition member, has filed a motion to intervene. The organizations comprising the Coalition are ref http www.drugscience.org PR 10 9 02 filing.htm Untitled Document Bot generated title ref American Alliance for Medical Cannabis Americans for Safe Access California NORML The Drug Policy Forum of Texas Jon Gettman High Times The Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative Patients Out of Time Other interested individuals. See also Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act References Reflist http www.drugscience.org DrugScience.org http www.drugscience.org PR 10 9 02 filing.htm National Coalition Seeks Recognition of the Accepted Medical Use of Cannabis in the United States Petition Provides Scientific Argument For Rescheduling , 9 October 2002 http www.420.com ht legal content.php?page &aid 3&bid 181 The Cannabis Column 1 The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, High Times , 5 September 2002 http www.letfreedomgrow.com articles reschedule cannabis.htm American Alliance for Medical Cannabis Joins Battle to Reschedule Cannabis http www.reschedulecannabis.com Reschedule Cannabis Cannabis Dr ... more details
Tort law The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance , and occasionally malfeasance , are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law , custom or statute. Definition and relevant rules of law When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, there are three things the parties can do wrong Nonfeasance is to ignore and take no indicated action neglect . Misfeasance is to take inappropriate action or give intentionally incorrect advice. Malfeasance is hostile, aggressive action taken to injure the client s interests. Example A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering company doesn t show up, it s considered nonfeasance . If the catering company shows up but only provides drinks and not the food, which was also paid for , it s considered misfeasance . If the catering company accepts a bribe from its client s competitor to undercook the meat, thereby giving those present food poisoning , it s considered malfeasance . The rule of law laid down is that an action in contract ex contractu will lie for any of the three. However, an action in tort ex delicto , will lie only misfeasance or malfeasance. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly see R. v. Kilderby, 1669, 1 Will. Saund. 311, 312 c . At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes. This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways but in other cases the courts are astute to find evidence of carelessness in ... more details
The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the state of Arizona . It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty two judge s on the court sixteen in Division One, based in Phoenix, Arizona Phoenix , and six in Division Two, based in Tucson, Arizona Tucson . Jurisdiction The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider appeals in Civil law common law civil cases from the Arizona Superior Court . The court also reviews Minor law juvenile and Family law domestic relations matters from the superior court, workers compensation and unemployment benefits decisions, Arizona Tax Court tax court decisions, and certain corporation commission decisions. The court also has jurisdiction over appeals in Criminal law criminal matters from superior court, except for cases in which a Capital punishment death sentence has been imposed. Death penalty cases go directly to the Supreme Court of Arizona . The court may also decide petitions for special action, which is Arizona s term for petitions for special writ s, such as certiorari , mandamus and Prohibition writ prohibition . Procedures Selection of judges Judges are selected by a modified form of the Missouri Plan . A bipartisan commission considers applicants and sends a list of nominees to the governor. The Governor of Arizona governor is required by law to appoint from this list based on merit, without regard to party affiliation. Judges are then retained for an initial period, after which they are subject to a retention election . If the judge wins the election, his her term is six years. Deciding cases Like many state appellate courts, the Court of Appeals decides cases in panels of three judges, called departments . Each department chooses a presiding judge from among the three. Division One also has a Chief Judge and Vice Chief Judge, elected by all judges in the division. See also Courts of Arizona External links http azcourts.gov coa1 Home.aspx Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One websi ... more details
Wikify date April 2011 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants United States ex rel . West v. Hitchcock ArgueDate January 30 ArgueYear 1907 DecideDate March 4 DecideYear 1907 FullName United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock USVol 205 USPage 80 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1906 1909 Majority JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent NotParticipating LawsApplied United States ex rel . West v. Hitchcock , ussc 205 80 1907 , regards a case where the United States Secretary of the Interior Secretary of the Interior has authority to pass on the right of one claiming to be a member of a band of Indians to select land under an agreement ratified by an act of Congress, his jurisdiction does not depend upon his decision s being right. ref http supreme.justia.com us 205 80 United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80 1907 Justia.com ref The United States promised to allot convert 160 acre km2 to each member of the Wichita people Wichita band of Indians under the Act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 876, 895. This promise may confer a right on every single member of the band, but the primary decision as to who the members are must come from the Secretary of the Interior, and, in the absence of any indication in the act to allow an appeal to the courts for applicants who are dissatisfied, mandamus will not issue to require the Secretary to approve the selection of one claiming to be an adopted member of the tribe but whose application the Secretary has denied. In view of long established practice of the Department of the Interior, and the undoubted power of Congress over the Indians, this Court will hesitate to construe the language of 441, 463, Rev.Stat., as not giving the Department of the Interior control over the adoption of whites into the Indian tribes. 26 App.D.C. 290 affirmed. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205 References reflist Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1907 in United States case law SCOTUS stub ... more details
distinguish2 Dove River Canterbury , a tributary of the Mandamus River Infobox River river name Dove River image name image size caption origin Tasman Region mouth Motueka River basin countries New Zealand length elevation mouth elevation discharge watershed The Dove River is a river in the Tasman Region of New Zealand . It arises in hills between the Wai iti River and Motueka River and flows north west into the Motueka near the locality of Woodstock, Tasman Woodstock . ref cite book title Reed New Zealand Atlas year 2004 isbn 0 7900 0952 8 author Peter Dowling editor publisher Reed Books pages Map 58 nopp true ref The river is named for the Kerer native pigeons once found in the forests around the river. ref cite book title Discover New Zealand A Wises Guide edition 9th year 1994 page 293 ref Brown trout can be found in the lower reaches of the river. ref cite web url http www.nzfishing.com FishingWaters NelsonMarlborough NMFishingWaters NMDove.htm title The Dove River Trout Fishing publisher nzfishing.com accessdate 14 August 2009 ref See also List of rivers of New Zealand References reflist http www.linz.govt.nz placenames search index.aspx Land Information New Zealand Search for Place Names coord 41 15 55 S 172 49 42 E display title region NZ TAS type river scale 100000 Category Rivers of the Tasman Region Tasman geo stub ... more details
Wikify date April 2011 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants United States v. Lawrence ArgueDate ArgueYear 1795 DecideDate DecideYear 1795 FullName United States v. Lawrence USVol 3 USPage 19 Holding the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed SCOTUS 1795 Majority JoinMajority United States v. Lawrence 3 U.S. 42 Dall. 1795 is an early United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case the court held blockquote Where a judge of the district court, acting in his judicial capacity, determined that evidence was not sufficient to authorize him to proceed in a case before him, this Court has no power to compel him to decide according to the dictates of any judgment but his own, whatever might be the difference of sentiment entertained by the court. A motion was made by the Attorney General of the United States Bradford for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not be directed to John Lawrence, Judge of the District of New York, in order to compel him to issue a warrant, for apprehending Captain Barre, commander of the frigate Le Perdrix, belonging to the French Republic. ref http supreme.justia.com us 3 42 case.html 3 U.S. 42 1795 ref blockquote See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3 References reflist Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1795 in United States case law ... more details
The Superior Court is Georgia U.S. state Georgia s general jurisdiction trial court. It has exclusive, constitutional authority over felony cases, divorce , equity law equity and cases regarding title to land. The exclusive jurisdiction of this court also covers such matters as declaratory judgments, habeas corpus , mandamus , quo warranto and prohibition. The Superior Court corrects errors made by lower courts by issuing writs of certiorari for some lower courts, the right to direct review by the Superior Court applies. Superior Courts are organized into 10 Judicial Districts, comprising 49 judicial circuits. Each county has its own Superior Court, though a judge may serve more than one county. A chief judge handles the administrative tasks for each circuit. Superior Court judges are elected to four year terms in nonpartisan , circuit wide races. To qualify as a Superior Court judge, a candidate must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of Georgia for at least three years, and have practiced law for at least seven years. Superior Court judges who have retired and taken senior status may hear cases in any circuit at the request of a local judge, an administrative judge, or the governor. ref cite web url http www.georgiacourts.org index.php?option com content&view article&id 171&Itemid 0 title The Superior Courts of Georgia accessdate 26 June 2011 ref References reflist Category Georgia U.S. state state courts ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation ArgueDate April 20 ArgueYear 2011 DecideDate June 13 DecideYear 2011 FullName United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation Docket 10 382 Docket2 USVol USPage OralArgument http www.oyez.org cases 2010 2019 2010 2010 10 382 argument Citation Prior Defendent ordered to produce documents sub nom. Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States , 88 Fed.Cl. 1 2009 petitions for a writ of mandamus denied sub nom. In re United States , 590 F.3d 1305 Fed. Cir. 2009 certiorari granted, 562 U. S. 2011 Subsequent Holding The fiduciary exception to attorney client privilege does not apply to the Tribal sovereignty in the United States Nation to Nation Tribes and the Federal Government general trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. SCOTUS 2010 Majority Alito JoinMajority Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Concurrence Ginsburg JoinConcurrence Breyer Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Sotomayor JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating Kagan LawsApplied United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation , Case citation No. 10 382 2011 , was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the fiduciary exception to attorney client privilege does not apply to the Tribal sovereignty in the United States Nation to Nation Tribes and the Federal Government general trust relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. ref http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 10pdf 10 382.pdf United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation United States Supreme Court, Syllabus p. 2, Held The fiduciary exception to the attorney client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. ref See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 564 References Reflist External links http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 10pdf 10 382.pdf Slip opinion from the Supreme Court SCOTUS case stub Category 2011 in Unit ... more details
acted favorably upon their appeal and issued a writ of mandamus dated April 28 ordering Director General ... Letter and the mandamus be read and explained to the people. In the midst of considerable excitement, Melyn handed the mandamus to Arnoldus van Hardenbergh to be read aloud. Stuyvesant in a rage snatched the mandamus from van Hardenbergh s hands, and in the confusion the seal was torn off. Melyn then offered Stuyvesant a copy of the mandamus, whereupon the latter was induced by some of the bystanders ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
