Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealwillcompliancewrit of mandamus
motionwillrespondentwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

Steinway & Sons v. Robert Demars & Friends, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1981 WL 40530, 210 U.S.P.Q. 954
View Case »
United States v. Craft, 99 F.4th 407
View Case »
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 68 S.Ct. 440, 92 L.Ed. 588, 76 U.S.P.Q. 280
View Case »
Vallera v. Vallera, 21 Cal.2d 681, 134 P.2d 761
View Case »
Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757, 152 P.3d 420, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 116, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2227
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pinckney v. Henegan, 33 S.C.L. 250, 2 Strob. 250, 1848 WL 2877, 49 Am.Dec. 592

Facts

Robert Q. Pinckney was appointed by Governor Aiken to index public records in the Secretary of State's office, following resolutions passed by the Legislature in December 1845. The Secretary of State, B. K. Henegan, and his deputy, Thomas S. Jones, refused to grant access to the records, leading Pinckney to seek a writ of mandamus to compel compliance. The court had to determine whether the Secretary's refusal was lawful and whether the relator had the right to access the records as per the legislative directives.

The questions raised by the suggestion of the relator, and the answer of the respondents to the rule granted thereon, will be sufficiently understood from the opinion prefixed by his Honor, the presiding Judge, to the order made upon the relator's motion.

Issue

Whether the relator, Robert Q. Pinckney, had the right to access the public records in the Secretary of State's office to perform the indexing work as authorized by the Legislature, and whether the Secretary's refusal constituted a violation of that right.

The first question made, by the answer of the respondent in this case, is, whether the relator's appointment is to be regarded as official, and terminating with his office. I am clear that it is not.

Rule

The court held that public records in the Secretary of State's office are the property of the State, and the Secretary is bound to comply with legislative directives regarding access to those records.

The public records in the Secretary of State's office do not belong to the Secretary; they are the property of the State. He is the mere keeper under her authority.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative resolutions that authorized the indexing work and concluded that they conferred upon the relator the right to access the records necessary for his work. The court rejected the Secretary's claims that access was contingent upon his consent and payment of fees, emphasizing that the Secretary's role was merely to execute the will of the Legislature. The court also noted that the right to appeal does not prevent the execution of the mandamus.

If the Legislature should have the folly to declare, by law, that every citizen should have access to them at all times, and be permitted to take copies, the Secretary has no other alternative than to submit.

Conclusion

The court ordered the issuance of the writ of mandamus, compelling the Secretary of State to grant access to the records as requested by the relator. The court affirmed that the appeal did not act as a supersedeas to the execution of the mandamus.

It is therefore ordered that the writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the relator, do issue.

Who won?

Robert Q. Pinckney prevailed in the case because the court found that he had a legitimate right to access the public records for the purpose of completing the indexing work as mandated by the Legislature.

The court ruled in favor of the relator, stating that the Secretary of State must comply with the legislative resolutions that authorized the indexing work.

You must be