Conrad v. City of Beebe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mandamus would not lie where a previous opinion from this Court “at a minimum, muddies the waters” so that the right to relief was not clear
• holding that mandamus would not lie where a previous opinion from this Court “at a minimum, muddies 'the waters” so that the right to relief was not clear
• observing that Art. 36.13 has been cited to support “the common notion that a jury decides facts, and the court applies the law to the facts.”
• observing that “[t]his ease, like all- mandamus cases, must be decided on the existing law alone”; “a mandamus proceeding is not the appropriate place to interpret statutory language”
• observing that a mandamus case “must be decided on the existing law alone” and is not an appropriate vehicle to “interpret statutory language, clarify this Court’s precedent, or create law where there is none”
• denying mandamus relief to the State, and holding that a defendant’s request for a pretrial determination of intellectual disability “does not call for the execution of a ministerial act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).