AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus related to an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) case. The district court had denied the petition on the basis of an alleged failure to comply with a procedural rule, which was contested as a typographical error by the Respondent.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly denied his petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Respondent-Appellee: Contended that the district court's denial of the petition was due to a typographical error in referring to a procedural rule and that the intended rule was about insufficient service of process.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus based on an alleged procedural deficiency.

Disposition

• The decision of the district court to deny the petition for a writ of mandanus was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and BOGARDUS, J., concurring): The appellate court found the district court's basis for denying the petition, purportedly due to a procedural deficiency, to be improper. It was determined that the district court had not issued either an alternative or peremptory writ prior to the denial of the petition, which meant that the petitioner was not obligated to serve anything upon the respondent at that stage. The appellate court remained unpersuaded by the respondent's argument regarding a typographical error in the citation of the procedural rule. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion (paras 1-5).