Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sines v. Holden, 360 P.2d 218.

27 citing documents.

LANGAN v. DAVIS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” requiring that the petitioner has an immediate and complete right to the relief sought, that “the respondent had a legal duty to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel and that there is an absence of another adequate remedy.”
Joshua Tree v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Joshua Tree v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Neal v. Ruiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Neal v. Ruiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy based upon the premises that the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent had a legal duty to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel and that there is an absence of another adequate remedy.”
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
*248 (stating the writ of mandamus is discretionary).
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours 372 P.3d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
-10, quoting 2 Pomeroy 91, Equity Jurisprudence, § 397 (5th ed.); see also 27A Am.
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood 260 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood 260 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Mandamus relief is “based upon the premises that the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent had a legal duty to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel and that there is an absence of another adequate remedy.” , see AR.S.
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 18 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy based upon the premise[ ] that the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought____”
Brewer v. Burns 213 P.3d 671 Ariz. 2009
Brewer v. Burns 213 P.3d 671 Ariz. 2009
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Treasurer 88 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Valenzuela 506 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1973
State v. Valenzuela 506 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1973
State ex rel. Williams v. Superior Court 500 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State ex rel. Williams v. Superior Court 500 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
§ 12-2021 provides that a writ of mandamus may issue from a superior court of the State of Arizona directed to an inferior tribunal, but the writ is not to issue where there exists a “plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.” , ; , ; , ; , 226 P. 529 ; P. 12 ; , 162 P. 882 .
Arizona State Retirement Board v. Gibson 411 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Arizona State Retirement Board v. Gibson 411 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
Smith v. Neely 380 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1963
399 , , 220: “ ‘The rule does not go so far as to prohibit a court of equity from giving its aid to a bad or a faithless man or a criminal.