Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

MacCaud v. United States

District of ConnecticutZampanoDecided October 5, 1972

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 Justice Read by a model
Since the duty of the Attorney General under § 1253(g) is not clearly mandated by the wording of the statute, relief by way of mandamus must be denied.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
has applied for an injunction, enjoining his deportation hearing scheduled for October 6, 1972, and for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Attorney General to perform certain acts pursuant to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(g).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; the petitioner’s request for a mandamus is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; the petitioner’s request for a mandamus is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
With respect to the petitioner’s request for a mandamus, the application is denied.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; the petitioner’s request for a mandamus is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; the petitioner’s request for a mandamus is denied.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; the petitioner’s request for a mandamus is denied.
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
Nationality Canada Read by a model
the petitioner, who claims to be a citizen of both Canada and Ireland

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 Second 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.