A writ of mandamus and an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) provide distinct avenues for seeking immediate appellate review of a district court order. In some circumstances, however, appellate courts have denied mandamus because the petitioner failed to pursue an appeal under § 1292(b).
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy reserved for those exceptional circumstances when the district court has committed a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). Seldom granted, it has been called one of “the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal.” Will v. U.S., 389 U.S. 90, 107 (1967). While there are varying formulations of the standards for mandamus, at a minimum a petitioner must show that there is “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,” that the right to the relief sought is “clear and indisputable” and that the writ is otherwise “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380 81.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
