Section 29 Writ of Mandamus

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

The basic purpose of the common-law writ of mandamus is “to
compel the performance of a ministerial duty that one charged with the duty has refused to perform.” Furlong Cos. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 165–66 (Mo. banc 2006). The traditional application of the mandamus remedy is to enforce, not establish, a right or claim. State ex rel. Comm’rs of State Tax Comm’n v. Schneider, 609 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Mo. banc 1980). The principle at the heart of mandamus “is that public officers are required to perform ministerial duties without any request or demand, and the entire public has a right to that performance.” State ex rel. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit v. Jones, 823 S.W.2d 471, 475 (Mo. banc 1992). When “the duty sought to be enforced is a simple, definite ministerial duty imposed by law, the threshold for standing is extremely low,” and “a narrow window exists by which even a member of the general public may seek mandamus against a public official.” State ex rel. City of Cabool v. Tex. County Bd. of Equalization, 850 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Mo. banc 1993).

A mandamus plaintiff has the burden to show that the right sought to be enforced is a clearly established, presently existing right to performance of the act demanded. State ex rel. Mo. Growth Ass’n v. State Tax Comm’n, 998 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Mo. banc 1999); State ex rel. Brentwood Sch. Dist. v. State Tax Comm’n, 589 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. banc 1979). Whether the asserted right is clearly established and presently existing is determined by...