“The court has concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.”
How later courts described this case
- “The court has concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.”
- noting that the facts of Dooley did not differ in any material respect from those in Lara
- noting that the facts of Dooley did not differ in any material respect from those in Lard
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM: Pursuant to our Rule 381 (58 Ill. 2d R. 381), Genaro Lara filed with this court on February 15 a motion and supporting suggestions seeking leave to file his proposed petition for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Judge Joseph Schneider, a judge of the circuit court of Cook County, to reverse the decision of the municipal officers electoral board in cause No. 79—EBA—16 and to order petitioner’s name to appear on the ballot for the February 27, 1979, election for the office of alderman in the 22d ward of the city of Chicago.
After considering the motion, proposed petition and supporting suggestions, the court requested responses thereto by the respondent municipal officers electoral board, and Denise A. Arens, the objector before the board to petitioner’s nominating papers.
The court has concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy. Unlike the petitioner who was precluded by the shortage of time from seeking trial court relief in Dooley v. McGillicudy (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 54 , relied on by Lara, petitioner here had time to and did seek review of the electoral board action in the circuit court of Cook County, and a final and appealable judgment was entered by that court on February 13, 1979. Mandamus is, of course, not a permissible substitute for direct appeal. (People ex rel. Bradley v. McAuliffe (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 75, 78 ; People ex rel. Adamowski v. Dougherty (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 393, 400 ; People ex rel. Furlong v. Board of Election Commissioners (1949), 404 Ill. 326, 330 ; People ex rel. Barrett v. Shurtleff (1933), 353 Ill. 248, 259 .) Equally summary action from this court was available to petitioner by filing a notice of appeal to the appellate court and simultaneously requesting us to transfer that appeal to this court pursuant to our Rule 302(b) (58 Ill. 2d R. 302(b)) and expedite its hearing and disposition.
The motion for leave to file an original mandamus action is accordingly denied.
Motion denied.