Writs of Mandamus & Prohibition PDF
Writs of Mandamus & Prohibition PDF
Writs of Mandamus & Prohibition PDF
Attached: MN 563.01, 586.01-.12; Minn. Rules of Civ. App. Procedure Rules 120, 121; Forms and
detailed procedures for petitioning for writs of mandamus, writs of prohibition, and petitioning for emergency (oral) writs
of mandamus/prohibition.
Originally compiled July 1997
Last Updated May 2001
Extraordinary writs fall outside the normal appeal process. For a typical appeal, there must
be a final judgment in the case, or appeal may be allowed for certain pre-judgment court orders.
(Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03). Extraordinary writs allow for a higher court to review a judges
decision or ruling before a final order or judgment has been issued and when the typical appeals
process cannot adequately address the problem. Generally extraordinary writs will most likely be
issued against a lower court, but case law and statute also allow writs to be used against other bodies
that are either compelled by law to fulfill some duty or to prevent them from exceeding their
authority.1
There are four circumstances where either a writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition may be
obtained. These include:
1.) when no adequate remedy at law exists or in other words, the issue cannot be
reviewed meaningfully on appeal from a final order or judgment[;]
2.) when the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction resulting in irreparable
harm[;]
3.) when the trial courts action may effectively decide the case[;] or,
4.) when review of the trial court decision will settle or establish a new rule of
practice affecting other litigants.2
Generally, the primary purpose of extraordinary writs is to allow review by the appellate
courts when an ordinary appeal would be meaningless.3 However, unlike your right to appeal, there
is no right to an extraordinary writ because it is discretionary. In other words, the reviewing court
has discretion in whether to consider the extraordinary writ while, in contrast, it must consider a
proper appeal.
A further restriction for writs of prohibition or mandamus is that the reviewing court
CANNOT control judicial discretion, it can only force the lower court to perform its duties, exercise
its judgment, perform its judicial functions, follow the clear statement of the law, or prevent the
lower court from exceeding its authority or jurisdiction. (Minn. Stat. sec 586.01).
1
See Minn. Stat. sec. 586.01 (1996)(enclosed in this packet); Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. App.
1995)(compelling the Animal Humane Society to follow its statutory duty to disclose to the public the records of animals
seized); Brandhorst v. Special School Dist. No. 1, 466 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. App. 1991)(stating that mandamus procedure
may be appropriate remedy to compel a required school district procedure.).
2
David F. Herr and Mary R. Vasaly, Appellate Practice In Minnesota: A Decade of Experience with the Court of
Appeals, 19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 613, 628 (1993).
3
Id.
III.) What is the Difference Between a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Prohibition?
The basic distinction between writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition is that the writ of
mandamus compels a judicial body to perform a duty which the law clearly and positively
requires,4 while the writ of prohibition prevents a judicial body from exercising its power in a
manner unauthorized by law.5
4
Day v. Wright County, 391 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. App. 1986).
5
State v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622, 625 (Minn. 1996).
6
Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205, 207 (Minn. App. 1995).
2.) Alternative writs of mandamus allow for the defendant to answer the petition for the
writ of mandamus to show cause why they should not be compelled to comply with the
writ.7
The basic distinction between the two is that with a peremptory writ, there is no valid excuse
for nonperformance of the act clearly required by law, while for an alternative writ of mandamus the
law may be unclear and there may be some valid excuse for not complying.
The important difference is mainly procedural because if the reviewing court decides the writ
is an alternative writ of mandamus, then the body being compelled to comply with the writ
may have an opportunity to answer and show cause why it should not have to comply with the
writ. If the reviewing court finds that the writ is peremptory, then it will not allow the
opposing party to answer and will issue the writ of mandamus because the law so clearly states
the duty required by the opposing party.
7
Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205, 208 (Minn. App. 1995).
8
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 208 (Minn. 1986).
9
General Rules of Practice for District Courts Title IV. Rules of Family Court Procedure, Rule 310.01(a) (1996).
D.) Are There Time Limits for Petitioning for an Extraordinary Writ?
Rule 120, governing the procedure for filing extraordinary writs, does not set any time limits
for when to file. The Minnesota supreme court has addressed this issue; their answer was that there
is no specific time limitation for a writ of mandamus and the Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure
(Rule 104.01) governing time limits for appeals is merely a guide for efficiency in the area of writs
of mandamus.12
10
Herr and Vasaly, supra note 2, at 628.
11
State v. Adams, 110 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1961)(the issue whether in forma pauperis could be used for writ of
mandamus was never reached because the court denied the petition on other grounds).
12
Johnson v. Minnesota Farm Bureau Marketing Corporation, 232 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1975).