Cited by

111 (scheduling), 115 (motion practice); the final judgment in her notice of appeal and argued at oral argument before this court that she intended to appeal from that final judgment, we will generally construe the appeal to also include an appeal from the final judgment.

–20 (Minn. 1989); (“[t]he responsibility for an overburdened judicial system cannot, after all, rest with the defendant.”).

“Mere court congestion is insufficient” to justify delays, but administrative delays, by themselves, are “generally insufficient to violate a defendant’s speedy-trial right in the absence of a deliberate attempt to delay trial ,” State v. Hahn , , 32 (Minn. App. 2011).

(“[O]vercrowding in the court system is not a valid reason for denying a defendant a speedy trial.”); -20 (Minn. 1989) (describing exigent circumstances as “the death of the trial judge or if the courthouse burned and there was no immediate space available”).

“[I]t is [not] an abuse of discretion for a trial court to delay trial on its own initiative where there is good cause or exigent circumstances substantiated by the record.” –20 (Minn. 1989).

Mandamus is “an extraordinary legal remedy granted on equitable principles.” see also Minn. Stat. § 586.02 (2014) (stating that a writ of mandamus may not be issued “in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”).

If the act or duty at issue is discretionary, “the party seeking the writ must establish that failure to perform it ‘was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” (quoting Baker v. Connolly CaHage Corp., 239 Minn. 72, 74 , ).

if the administrative body’s act was a legislative decision if the body’s failure to perform ‘was so arbi *178 trary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” -59 (Minn.App.2001) (concluding that mandamus can be applied to a city’s discretionary decision to deny an application to vacate public easements) () (emphasis added); (affirming a writ of mandamus requiring a city to rezone a parcel of land where the city’s denial of a rezoning application was “arbitrary”).

339, 339 (1883); (citing State v. Teall in dicta).

Where, as in this case, the act the court is charged with is a discretionary one, the petitioner must establish that failure to perform it “ ‘was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” (quoting Baker v. Connolly Cartage Corp., 239 Minn. 72, 74 , ).

Where, as in this case, the act the court is charged with is a discretionary one, the petitioner must establish that failure to perform it " `was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.'" McIntosh v. Davis , , 118 (Minn. 1989) (quoting Baker v. Connolly Cartage Corp ., 239 Minn. 72 , 74 , , 658 (1953)).

Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy that courts issue only when the petitioner shows that there is “a clear and present official duty to perform a certain act.” Minn.Stat.

Mandamus is appropriate if a petitioner has shown that (1) the party against whom a writ is directed had a “clear and present official duty to perform a certain act,” and (2) if the ordered action is discretionary, that failure to perform it “was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

§ 586.02 (1998) (stating mandamus “shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”); (stating mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel or restrain action by a judicial or quasi-judicial body, particularly where there exists no adequate remedy at law (citing authorities)); Silver Bay Area Citizens for Quality Educ.