Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. Colvin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining the “nondiscretionary duty” element requires that “the duty owed to the plaintiff must be ministerial and a positive command so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• explaining the “nondiscretionary duty” element requires that 18 “the duty owed to the plaintiff must be ministerial and a positive command so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• making same points (quoting Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057, 1060–61 (8th Cir. 2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has established that [m]andamus may issue under § 1361 . . . only in extraordinary situations and when the plaintiff can establish (1
• federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to consider challenges to the procedures used in administering Social Security benefits
• first two numbered requirements for a writ of mandamus
• first two numbered requirements for a writ of mandamus

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).