Opinion ID: 1766533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Language of Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus

Text: This Court has used different language based on whether it is issuing a writ of prohibition or mandamus. A writ in prohibition typically has been issued as a preliminary writ and then made absolute or quashed. In contrast, a writ of mandamus typically has been issued as an alternative writ and then made peremptory or quashed. The distinction between prohibition [1] and mandamus [2] is often elusive and sometimes only serves to create confusion for parties. Petitions often seek writs of prohibition and (or and/or) mandamus. This Court or the court of appeals then chooses which one it thinks applies. See e.g., State ex rel. Pidgeons v. Ryan, 759 S.W.2d 837, 837 (Mo. banc 1988) (Relator filed a petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus, and we issued a preliminary rule in prohibition.). In allowing the petitioned-for writ of mandamus to be issued where a writ of prohibition seemed the better writ to issue, the court of appeals stated that [t]he distinction between mandamus and prohibition is at best blurred, at worst nonexistent, and the subject matter to which the two writs apply overlap to a great extent. St. Louis Little Rock Hosp., Inc. v. Gaertner, 682 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1984). The court stated that to deny a writ of mandamus in the case would be to engage in fine, anachronistic distinctions of nomenclature and revert to the hyper-technical niceties of Common Law Pleading where the title of pleading was of more importance than its content. Id. There has been some attempt to remedy this confusion. See, e.g., State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of the State of Missouri, 236 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Mo. banc 2007) (This Court issued its alternative (i.e., preliminary) writ of mandamus... which the Court now makes peremptory (i.e., final, absolute).). It would seem to make no difference if the same language were used for either writ. To facilitate greater clarity, this Court from this point forward will change its terminology in mandamus and prohibition cases by abandoning the words and phrases alternative writ, absolute and peremptory. All initially issued writs in such cases shall be preliminary writs of mandamus or prohibition, as the case may be, that, upon final determination, shall be made quashed or made permanent. [3] As applied in the current case, the Court notes that it issued a preliminary writ of mandamus, which was labeled as an alternative writ of mandamus. With the merits of the case decided, the Court makes the preliminary writ permanent, which directs the respondent to take the mandated action.