useful purpose); Patterson v. Omnipoint Communications, 122 F.Supp.2d 222, 227-28 (D.Mass.2000) ll., 29 F.Supp.2d 915, 924 (C.D.Ill.1998) (ordering city to issue permit as remedy for violation of TCA); Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F.Supp. 732, 746 (C.D.Ill.1997) (concluding an injunction directing county to issue permit was appropriate relief under TCA); AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, 10 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1333-34 (N.D.Ga.1997) (granting mandamus relief to plaintiff by ordering council to issue a permit, recognizing other forms of relief could be appropriate, and concluding remand would serve no purpose but would frustrate TCA's direction to expeditiously resolve the matter); Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Jefferson County, 968 F.Supp. 1457, 1463 (N.D.Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>); BellSouth Mobility Inc. v. Gwinnett County,
holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief holding that a denial of due process warrants mandamus relief holding that where the trial court has recently taken action mandamus relief was not warranted holding the tca vests court with authority to grant mandamus relief holding the constitution vests the federal government with exclusive authority over relations with indian tribes