Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Fahey
Ex Parte Fahey, 67 S. Ct. 1558 (1947)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1947-06-23
- Topic
- general
stating that the “extraordinary remed[y]” of mandamus “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy” (emphasis added) | stating that the “extraordinary remed[y]” of mandamus “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy” (emphasis 30 Case: 13-12161 Date Filed: 09/10/2014 Page: 31 of 55 added) | stating that the “extraordinary remed[y]” of mandamus “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy” (emphasis 30 Case: 13-12161 Date Filed: 09/10/2014 Page: 31 of 55 added) | stating that the “extraordinary remed[y]” of mandamus “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy” (emphasis 30 Case: 13-12161 Date Filed: 09/10/2014 Page: 31 of 55 added) | explaining such an extraordinary remedy is “reserved for really extraordinary causes” | “We are unwilling to utilize them as substitutes for appeals. As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.” | “ ‘ “[mjandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies.... As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes” ’ ” | mandamus “against judges [is a] drastic and extraordinary remed[y]” and should not be “utilize[d] ... as a substitute[ ] for appeal” | “ ‘[m]andamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies.... As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes’” | mandamus and other extraordinary writs directed at judicial officers “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. We are unwilling to utilize them as substitutes for appeals.” | mandamus and other extraordinary writs directed at judicial officers "should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. We are unwilling to utilize them as substitutes for appeals." | mandamus actions “have the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants before him.” | “[A] writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we will not issue absent a compelling justification.” | “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted in the court’s sound discretion.” (citing Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 339 (2000)) | mandamus actions "have the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants before him." | mandamus and other extraordinary writs directed at judicial officers “should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. We are unwilling to utilize them as substitutes for appeals.” | “[m]andamus, prohibition and injunction ... are drastic and extraordinary remedies.”
Citator
- Cited by
- 258 opinions
Petition invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court and asking leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition or injunction against a District Judge to vacate his order allowing fees to counsel inFaheyv.Mallonee, ante, p. 245, to prohibit any further allowance therein and to enjoin any payments heretofore allowed,denied, p. 260.
While an appeal in the principal case was pending in this Court, application was made by various counsel for the plaintiffs and associated interests therein for allowance of fees aggregating some $125,000. The District Court allowed counsel for plaintiffs $50,000 as a partial payment on account of services, but withheld action on other applications. Certain costs and expenses of the plaintiffs in the amount of $17,295.13 were also ordered reimbursed.
The petition involves serious questions of law and of fact. Whether, because of the pendency of the appeal and the stay order granted therein, the District Court had power to entertain the application, whether before the final outcome of the case could be known an allowance was premature, whether the source of the fund on deposit with the court was so related to the services as to be subject to disbursement for their compensation, and whether one judge can make allowances in a case before a three-judge court, are, with other questions, much contested. We do not decide any question as to the merits.
Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies. We do not doubtPage 260power in a proper case to issue such writs. But they have the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants before him. These remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. We are unwilling to utilize them as substitutes for appeals. As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.
We find nothing in this case to warrant their use. An allowance of $50,000 will hardly destroy a twenty-six-million-dollar association during the time it would take to prosecute an appeal. The status of one of the applicants in the principal case is now settled so that he has standing to take all authorized appeals. We hold that the applicants' grievance is one to be pursued by appeal at the proper time and to the appropriate court, rather than by resort to our original jurisdiction for extraordinary writs.
The petition isDenied.Page 261