Harris v. State of Illinois

2 Citing cases

  1. Chicago Bar v. Bd. of Elec

    161 Ill. 2d 502 (Ill. 1994)   Cited 48 times
    Restating the same conclusion

    ( Madden v. Cronson (1986), 114 Ill.2d 504, 514.) Its purpose is to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty (see People ex rel. Ryan v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity Benefit Fund (1985), 136 Ill. App.3d 818, 820) which the officer has failed to perform (see AFSCME v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1989), 187 Ill. App.3d 585, 601) and to which the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right (see Harris v. State (1991), 212 Ill. App.3d 13, 15). Implicit in these principles is that mandamus will only lie to force a public official to do what the law requires him to do.

  2. People v. Jenkins

    2020 Ill. App. 3d 180551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 425. In a slightly different context, in Harris v. State, 212 Ill. App. 3d 13 (1991), this court upheld the denial of an indigent defendant's request for a free transcript of a codefendant's trial but once again did not apply or reference the Britt two-part test. ΒΆ 32 Consequently, the case law from this court is conflicting and has yet to specifically apply the two-part Britt test. Therefore, instructive guidance can be found in the decisions applying the Britt test from some courts of other jurisdictions.