23. Mandamus.
 
    a. "The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from office. (citations omitted) That writ also is available to correct a manifest abuse of discretion by the governing body, and occasionally has been so utilized in zoning cases. State ex rel. Johns v. Gragson, 89 Nev. 478, 515 P.2d 65 (1973); Henderson v. Henderson Auto, 77 Nev. 118, 359 P.2d 743 (1961)."
Board of Comm'rs v. Dayton Dev. Co., 91 Nev. 71, 75, 530 P.2d 1187 (1975). No. 18.
 
     b. "Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Kochendorfer, 93 Nev. at 422, 566 P.2d at 1133; Gragson, 90 Nev. at 133, 520 P.2d at 617; see NRS 34.160."
County of Clark v. Atlantic Seafoods, 96 Nev. 608, 611, 615 P.2d 233 (1980). No. 23.
 
    c. "Because the board capriciously ignored the standards and criteria set forth in § 8.20.010(b), the district judge did not err by issuing the permanent writ of mandate." Id. at 611.  

    d. "We have previously held, moreover, that such abuse is properly corrected by a writ of mandamus."
City of Reno v. Nevada First Thrift, 100 Nev. 483, 487,.686 P.2d 231 (1984). No. 31.