Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney
BYRAM CONCRETANKS, INC., Petitioner v. Honorable Thomas F. MEANEY, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an action for mandamus brought against one of the district *171 judges for the District of New Jersey. The allegation complains that the district judge unduly restricted the applicant in his interrogatories in a pending litigation and that he acted contrary to what one of his fellow judges had ordered on the same point. We think that this is not a proper case for mandamus. TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 3 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 711 . This Court has said many times that mandamus is not to be taken as a substitute for appeal. E. g., Green v. Murphy, 3 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 591 . The district judge was acting in a ease which was before him and the action he took was within his authority. If he was wrong the error can be corrected on appeal. The petition will be denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.