State ex rel. Pensacola & Louisville Railroad v. VanNess
15 Fla. 317
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court;'
A mandamus does not lie in this case. The only duty which the Judge had to perform was the exercise of his judicial discretion and judgment in the matter of'determining his qualification. This he has done,' and this,writ does not lie to make him reverse his decision, even though it be wrong.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. Pensacola & Louisville Railroad v. VanNess, 15 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1875).
15 Fla. 317 (State ex rel. Pensacola & Louisville Railroad v. VanNess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fong, Auditor v. Sapienza, Judge
39 Haw. 79 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1951)
Territory ex rel. Scott v. Stuart
22 Haw. 576 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
State ex rel. Colcord v. Young
31 Fla. 594 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1893)
State ex rel. Hughes v. Walker
25 Fla. 561 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)
State ex rel. Moody v. Barnes
25 Fla. 298 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)