5 ms·
You often hear of courts issuing injunctions but not so often writs of mandamus. That's because a judge can easily order someone NOT to do something, and police
by Cupertino95014 4y ago
You often hear of courts issuing injunctions but not so often writs of mandamus. That's because a judge can easily order someone NOT to do something, and police show up and prevent them from doing it. Ordering them TO do something gets more complicated.
That's not to say the courts can't make things happen, but it's harder. The relevant party can say "look, I'm doing it!" and the court then has to rule "no, you're not."
- bombcar 4y agoBesides ordering specific performance the most common way is for the court to say "You need to have done this by this date" which then can cause another hearing when that date passes and it hasn't been done.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoAs you said: "another hearing." And probably, when that date passes, 1) someone has to complain to the court 2) the court has to schedule a hearing, where both parties are represented. In other words, time goes by. Not saying it's impossible.
- singleshot_ 4y agoThe reason why you do not hear of courts issuing writs of mandamus against someone to compel them to take some private commercial action is because that is not what a writ of mandamus is. A writ of mandamus obligates a government official do do his job. If a court wants to order “someone” (read: a citizen who is not a government official) to take some positive action they issue what is known as a positive injunction which is, as the name suggests, a type of injunction. When a court issues a negative injunction, the enjoined party can say, “Look, I’m not doing it!” and the court still has to decide whether or not that is true, so I’m somewhat unclear of the nature of your argument against positive injunctions.
- Cupertino95014 4y agowhere do I say "private commercial action"? We're talking about government agencies, which a writ of mandamus CAN apply to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]