Law of Writs

In general, a writ of mandamus can be described as an order, “commanding the performance of an act that the law requires as a clearly defined duty, arising from an office, trust, or station.” 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 1. Moreover, a writ of mandamus may be issued to command a nongovernmental body, such as a medical licensing board, to perform a specified duty imposed by law, and can also be invoked to control flagrant abuses of discretion. Id. For example, in some instances, upon judicial review, if a court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a license, it may order the license issued notwithstanding the boards denial of the license. 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 38.

In the case McCulloch v. Maryland, similar tactics from the Marbury v. Madison case. In the Marbury v. Madison case, the court had declared a law unconstitutional. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is called judicial review. Maryland had

The Writ of Habeas Corpus states that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public safety may require it" (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 9). In simpler terms, this means that the government, or its officials, is forbidden to arrest a citizen without allowing the case to be presented to a judge or court. The dictionary defines a writ as "a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority." Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, Habeas Corpus has been a pillar of law in America ("FAQs: What Is Habeas Corpus."). It

The process of the court granting writ of certiorari deals with the appeal of the case and then traveling through the appellate courts until it finally reaches the Supreme Court.

An injunction is a court order whereby one is required to do or to refrain from doing a specified act.

The court cases for Wilkes v. Wood and Entick v. Carrington were tried in England. Charles Pratt, and 1st Earl Camden came to the lawful conclusion that a search carried out by the defendant in the name of the king was prohibited. The general warrant authorized the seizure of the Plaintiff 's papers but not specific ones, and that the warrant lacked probable cause. This case became the precedent upon which all other criminal and civil cases under common law are determined (Search and Seizure- The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History, 2014). The third case that was tried dealt with Writs of Assistance. British customs inspectors seeking to eliminate smuggling in colonial Boston were given unrestricted search warrants, called writs of assistance. This allowed them to search any place where they suspected that smuggled goods existed. These writs, furthermore, permitted inspectors to force private citizens to help them carry out the searches. Some Boston merchants, represented by James Otis, sued, seeking that the writs were invalid. Although he merchants lost the case, Otis 's argument became famous and strengthened

Common law was not England’s only legal system. There were many other courts in England, however, people of England and America believed they had certain unalienable rights. One main factor of common law rights was the right to a fair trial. Through common law, the people were assured there would be an impartial judge and/or jury. Without such, the laws would be unfair and no one would receive a fair trial.

The Writs of Assistance were warrants that allowed officials to search for material that they had found to be smuggled in any citizen’s home, even without their given permission or a reason to do so.

The petition alleges that the preventable death of the daughters of Ms. Gonzales and the damage they suffered violate her rights to life and to the safety of the person enshrined in Article I, her right to privacy and family life provided in article V, his right to protection of the family, provided in article VI, his right to protection of motherhood and childhood, in accordance with article VII and his right to the inviolability of the home, provided in article IX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, "the American Declaration"). The petitioners add that the fact that the United States did not investigate Ms. González's complaint or provide her with a remedy violates her right to justice, enshrined in Article XVIII, as well as her right to obtain a quick decision from the courts. authorities, provided for in Article XXIV. Finally, the petition maintains that the fact that the United States did not ensure the substantive rights provided for in the articles listed violates Ms. Gonzales' right to equality, as provided in Article II. In response to the petition, the State argues that the petitioners' complaints are inadmissible because the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic

Marshall argued that in Section 13, Congress had improperly attempted to add to the Court's original jurisdiction, as Article III implied Congress could never do. Congress did so, according to Marshall, by conferring on the Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus - that is, an order compelling an official to carry out a non-discretionary ("ministerial") act.

2. By law, Marbury must receive a remedy. Writ of Mandamus is the proper remedy

there are cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” If MCA’s habeas

An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the

As mentioned in the text “Law is a body of rules established by government officials that bind government, individuals, and nongovernment organization.” These rules were established to maintain stability and justice. The five sources of law are common law, constitutional law, legislation, executive orders and administrative law. Common law is judge made and is grounded in tradition and previous judicial decisions, instead of in written laws. It was a tradition beginning in England as the United States had former ties to England, they were influenced by it. Constitutional law is the body of law that comes out of the courts in cases involving the interpretation of the constitution. The highest court is the Supreme Court.

This is a warrant because it supports the claim but isn’t proved to be true, however it persuades the readers to reason with the writer’s intended purpose.