Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

See this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977257/posts

The justices did not close the door to such action. A winning brief will explain why a member of the legislative branch is a "public official" within the context of mandamus. It will also have to explain why this is a narrow case, i.e. why granting mandamus in this instant will nt lead to constituents suing their elected representatives every time they dn't like what is being done (which seems to be the court's concern).

The Texas Supreme Court has left the door open here, and the first person to file a brief that backs up the above propositions with good case law and arguments will have a good shot at success.

1 posted on 09/06/2003 10:51:58 AM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: templar
Ping!
2 posted on 09/06/2003 10:57:27 AM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmstein7
The Texas Supreme Court has left the door open here, and the first person to file a brief that backs up the above propositions with good case law and arguments will have a good shot at success.

Since only three Justices noted that the dismissal was made without regard to constitutional issues, that sort of implies that the other six Justices don't agree.

4 posted on 09/06/2003 11:24:02 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inquest
bookmark
13 posted on 09/06/2003 1:17:01 PM PDT by inquest (We are NOT the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson