Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Intercontinental Placement Service, Inc. v. Hodgson

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJoseph S. Lord, IIIDecided June 1, 1971

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of Labor Read by a model
On February 6, 1970, the Secretary of Labor suspended that entire list.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin defendants from the suspension of Schedule C
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
We have concluded that plaintiff lacks standing to bring the action.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin defendants from the suspension of Schedule C and asks us to require defendants, by writ of mandamus, to follow the requirements and procedures associated with Schedule C
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
We have concluded that plaintiff lacks standing to bring the action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
We have concluded that plaintiff lacks standing to bring the action.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Since it was not, plaintiff lacks standing to question either the substantive propriety or the procedural propriety of action taken pursuant to the statute.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Third Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.