This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 9 -
requested documents. Id. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s petition because the
Rules of the Commission provided several ways for him to challenge the Commission’s
interpretation of VFOIA. Id. at 482-83. The Court held that “[b]ecause mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy, [the plaintiff] is required to avail himself of his ‘specific and adequate
remedy’ under the Commission’s Rules before seeking a writ of mandamus.” Id. at 483.
Here, Adams has a “specific and adequate” legal remedy: the appeals process. The
Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus cannot be used
as a substitute for an appeal.” Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Va. 599, 610 (2000); see also
Bd. of Supervisors v. Combs, 160 Va. 487, 498 (1933) (“[Mandamus] lies to compel, not to
revise or correct action, however erroneous it may have been, and is not like a writ of error or
appeal, a remedy for erroneous decisions.”). In fairness, it cannot be said that Adams is
attempting to substitute mandamus for an appeal. It did, after all, appeal appellees’ decision to
the BZA and has now petitioned the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News to overturn the
BZA’s denial of its appeal. In other words, it is presently availing itself of the appropriate legal
remedy. But an attempt to supplement an appeal with a writ of mandamus is no better than an
attempt to substitute such a writ for an appeal. Either way, there is a “specific and adequate”
legal remedy, so mandamus cannot lie. See Combs, 160 Va. at 498 (“Nor is the extraordinary
writ of mandamus ever granted to enforce a right when there is any other adequate legal remedy
available to the applicant.”).
Because Adams is entitled to neither a declaratory judgment nor a writ of mandamus, the
circuit court properly sustained appellees’ demurrer and plea in bar.
Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)