Opinion ID: 1439415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the standard requisites for issuance of a writ of mandamus

Text: Mandamus is a remedy of an extraordinary nature. [3] Its issuance is authorized by statute. [4] As the provisions of 12 O.S. 1981 § 1452 make clear, mandamus may be issued only in situations where there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. [5] The party seeking the writ must possess a clear legal right to the relief sought; the respondent must have a plain legal duty; and the exercise of discretion may not be implicated. [6] Application of the requisites to the issuance of a writ of mandamus counsels here that the writ should not issue if the trial court's denial of permission to assert the counterclaim (1) was within its discretion, (2) does not result in the deprivation of a clear legal right inuring to the benefit of the Electric Company, and (3) absent the writ's command, an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available. [7] Electric Company argues that its contribution counterclaim is compulsory and that its compulsory nature makes the relief sought by the writ essential. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim prevents a party from bringing a later independent action on that claim. [8] Consequently, a trial court's denial of permission to amend an answer for purposes of pressing a compulsory counterclaim would effectively preclude the defendant from subsequently asserting it. From these precepts it follows that a defendant has a clear legal right to assert a compulsory counterclaim, and a court has a plain legal duty to allow its interposition. Moreover, failure to permit the assertion of such a claim would effectively preclude an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Accordingly, only if Electric Company's contribution counterclaim is compulsory may relief by mandamus be warranted. [9]