Opinion ID: 2431
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Traditional Mandamus Standard

Text: Mandamus and other prerogative writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes. [22] Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute for appeal, even though hardship may result from delay and [a] perhaps unnecessary trial. [23] Indeed, it often has been said that mandamus is not available unless the petitioner's right to relief is clear and indisputable [24] and a direct appeal from a final judgment would not be an adequate remedy. [25] Moreover, while traditional formulations of the standard have spoken of using the writ to confine a lower court to the exercise of its proper jurisdiction, [26] it long has been clear that mandamus will not lie to review a claim of mere error in a lower court's jurisdictional determination. [27] Indeed, any different view would conflict with the requirement that the petitioner's right to relief be clear and indisputable. Mulligan argues that this Court may grant its petition under the traditional mandamus standard because the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the set aside order in sixty-one of the cases Mulligan originally filed in state court. At least until the district court actually awards fees out of the common benefit fund, however, Mulligan cannot demonstrate a need for traditional mandamus because it has not yet suffered any injury. In any case, it lacks a clear and indisputable right to relief [28] even assuming that the set aside order were erroneous. But traditional mandamus is not the only potentially relevant standard.