Hotel Corp. of Cleveland v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
This text of 283 F.2d 470 (Hotel Corp. of Cleveland v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In our judgment, the District Court had jurisdiction of the case against petitioner. It may not be prevented from exercising that jurisdiction by mandamus or prohibition.
Whether the District Court erred in permitting the complaint to be amended cannot be determined in this mandamus action. Petitioner has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to review the action of the District Court when a final appealable order has been entered in the case.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes. It may not be used as a. substitute for appeal. Beneke v. Weick, 6 Cir., 275 F.2d 38.
Leave to file the mandamus petition is, therefore, denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
283 F.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotel-corp-of-cleveland-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-northern-ca6-1960.