State ex rel. Doyle v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Doyle v. Henderson

268 So. 2d 676, 263 La. 616, 1972 La. LEXIS 5451

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 21, 1972

DocketNo. 52973

StatusPublished

This text of 268 So. 2d 676 (State ex rel. Doyle v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Doyle v. Henderson, 268 So. 2d 676, 263 La. 616, 1972 La. LEXIS 5451 (La. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Writ denied. Having received information that the relator’s application will be heard on November 27th, the court is of the opinion that the present application for mandamus is moot.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion mandamus should issue. The writ of babe"corpus was filed -in the trial court morv [618]*618■than one year ago. The trial court took no action. In our continual holding of ■mandamus writs in order to give trial courts time to act we avoid our constitutional obligation to act and grant legal relief when warranted. These delays by us while asking for returns tend to multiply the delays below in acting on writs of habeas corpus. Where a showing is made absolutely entitling one to relief by mandamus, I am of the opinion we should — we must — act without delay, especially where the mandamus is leveled at delinquencies in acting on the “Great Writ.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Writ denied. Having received information that the relator’s application will be heard on November 27th, the court is of the opinion that the present application for mandamus is moot.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion mandamus should issue. The writ of babe"corpus was filed -in the trial court morv [618]*618■than one year ago. The trial court took no action. In our continual holding of ■mandamus writs in order to give trial courts time to act we avoid our constitutional obligation to act and grant legal relief when warranted. These delays by us while asking for returns tend to multiply the delays below in acting on writs of habeas corpus. Where a showing is made absolutely entitling one to relief by mandamus, I am of the opinion we should — we must — act without delay, especially where the mandamus is leveled at delinquencies in acting on the “Great Writ.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 So. 2d 676, 263 La. 616, 1972 La. LEXIS 5451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-doyle-v-henderson-la-1972.