legal right to the performance of the act sought to be enforced, and the party to be coerced is under a positive legal obligation to do what he is asked to be made to do.” See Steele v. Cotton Mills, 231 N.C. 636, 639, 58 S.E.2d 620, 623 (1950). “ ‘ “The function of [a] writ [of mandamus] is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty — not to establish a legal right, but to enforce one which has been established.” ’ ” Moody v. Transylvania County, 271 N.C. 384, 390, 156 S.E.2d 716, 720 (1967) (citations omitted). Here, plaintiffs only remedy to enforce the legal right created by order of the administrative law judge awarding reinstatement of plaintiff without back pay was through a writ of mandamus. See N. C. Dept. of Transporation v. Davenport, 334 N.C. 428, 432 S.E.2d 303 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Our courts have not, however, revived a right
holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order holding that an agreed order with a state administrative agency was a public record and thus did not need to be disclosed holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order holding that florida administrative code rule 285211 which purported to allow an agency or hearing officer to dismiss a proceeding or enter a default as a sanction for failure to comply with a procedural order was invalid