We note that in the State's response, the district attorney general did not give notice of representation of the Foreperson and that on appeal, the Foreperson is represented by the county attorney. See, e.g., Cooley v. May, No. M2001-01162-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1660830, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2001) (concluding that the district attorney general did not have standing to file a motion to dismiss a state prisoner's petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the county sheriff be required to transfer his sentence credits to the state department of correction and that the sheriff should be properly represented by the county attorney). In this case, the State did not file a motion to dismiss and appears to have filed a response through the district attorney general as an interested party who, as asserted in the State's response, would have the responsibility if Mr. Willis's petition were granted "to transport [Mr.

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court should have granted their request to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Johnson County to complete the construction and installation of the infrastructure of the defunct "subdivision." As this Court observed in Cooley v. May, No. M2001-001162-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1660830, at *5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Dec. 28, 2001), A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.