All Writs Act

696 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 30 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  259 F.2d 921· D.C. Cir.· 1958-08-29 ·cited 289×
  The court held that while the petitioner likely had a right to intervene, a stay pending appeal was not warranted due to inadequate showings of irreparable harm and the public interest, and the existence of adequate appellate remedies.
• Schiavo v. Schiavo
  403 F.3d 1223· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-23 ·cited 266×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order sought by Theresa Schiavo's parents to prevent removal of her feeding tube, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their federal
• Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  750 F.2d 70· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 149×
  Where a statute commits final agency action to review by the Court of Appeals, that court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits seeking relief that might affect its future statutory power of review, even if the agency action is not yet final.
• Bauman v. United States Dist. Court
  557 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 148×
  Mandamus is inappropriate because petitioners have an alternative remedy via interlocutory appeal from the district court's order.
• Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. LA Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
  689 F.2d 982· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 146×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order from another circuit, but vacated the summary judgment because the district court erred in applying Alabama law when Arkansas choice of law rules should have governed.
• The Second Nat'l Natural Gas Rate Cases Am. Pub. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  567 F.2d 1016· D.C. Cir.· 1977-06-16 ·cited 138×
  The Court affirmed the FPC's Opinions 770 and 770-A establishing nationwide natural gas rates of $1.42 per Mcf for gas from wells commenced after January 1, 1975 (with escalation), $0.93 per Mcf for 1973-1974 biennium gas (reduced from $1.01), and $0.52 per Mcf for renewal contra
• Nixon v. The Honorable John J. Sirica
  487 F.2d 700· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-12 ·cited 121×
  The court held that an absolute privilege for confidential Presidential communications is necessary for the effective functioning of the Presidency and the government.
• Hardwick v. Doolittle
  558 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-29 ·cited 112×
  The court held that an injunction barring future habeas corpus petitions is improper, as res judicata does not apply to habeas proceedings and such injunctions risk violating the Suspension Clause. It also held that the defendant's retrial and resentencing did not violate double
• McGEE v. United States
  462 F.2d 243· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-18 ·cited 94×
  The court held that a trial judge must provide an explanation for refusing to reduce sentences on valid counts when a conviction on a related, more serious count has been invalidated.
• In re Union Leader Corp.
  292 F.2d 381· 1st Cir.· 1961-06-27 ·cited 90×
  The court held that while mandamus is an extraordinary writ, exceptional circumstances in a judge's reaction to a party's attacks can warrant its use to review a bias claim. However, the judge's irritation and belief that the party sought to disqualify him did not constitute pers
• Bartley PEN Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. OF Cal.
  287 F.2d 324· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-10 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the disclosure of trade secrets without sufficient showing of relevance and necessity, and that the remedy of appeal was inadequate, warranting relief under the All Writs Act.
• Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States
  493 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 80×
  A civil contempt order for failure to comply with a discovery order in an antitrust case is interlocutory and not immediately appealable, even when a substantial coercive fine is imposed, and the Expediting Act deprives the court of jurisdiction over such appeals.
• Susquehanna Valley Alliance v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor
  619 F.2d 231· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the National Environmental Policy Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as district courts have jurisdiction over such claims against the NRC. However, the Atomic Energy Act claim was properly dismissed for f
• United States v. Sorren
  605 F.2d 1211· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the denial of the defendant's motions to divest jurisdiction, for discovery, and for an evidentiary hearing were not immediately appealable interlocutory orders. The court also declined to issue a writ of mandamus.
• McDOUGALD v. Jenson
  786 F.2d 1465· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 77×
• In re Daley
  549 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 76×
  The court held that a federal court exceeded its statutory authority by granting immunity against disciplinary proceedings, and such immunity cannot be enforced against the disciplinary body.
• Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express
  555 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 74×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's dismissal of the intervenor's complaint was not a final decision and was not certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).
• CBS Inc. v. The Honorable Don J. Young
  522 F.2d 234· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-02 ·cited 74×
  A district court's order broadly prohibiting parties, their relatives, friends, and associates from discussing a case with the news media or public constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment freedoms.
• Cord v. Smith
  338 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-04 ·cited 74×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to disqualify an attorney is not immediately appealable, but can be reviewed via a writ petition, and that the attorney was disqualified due to prior representation of the opposing party in the same transaction.
• Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  441 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-26 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove judicial disqualification or fraud, and that the district court did not err in denying the claims, awarding costs, or issuing an injunction against further litigation of the same issues.
• United States v. United States Dist. Court FOR the E. Dist. OF Mich.
  444 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the disclosure of electronic surveillance logs without first conducting an in camera review to determine their relevance and necessity, particularly in national security cases.
• ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Barton
  569 F.2d 1351· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-24 ·cited 70×
  A civil contempt adjudication cannot stand if the underlying order is invalid. The court found the turn-over order invalid because it was not authorized by Florida law, the All Writs Act, or the court's inherent powers.
• Hamilton v. Nakai
  453 F.2d 152· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-03 ·cited 70×
  A single district judge has the authority to issue a writ of assistance to enforce a judgment previously entered by a three-judge district court, and this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Application of the President & Directors OF Georgetown Coll., Inc.
  331 F.2d 1000· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-03 ·cited 70×
  A single circuit judge has the authority to issue emergency writs to preserve the status quo in cases where a patient's life is in imminent danger and a judicial decision is needed.
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• Word v. State OF N.C.
  406 F.2d 352· 4th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 68×
  The dissent argues that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 and controlling precedent like Ahrens v. Clark, habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to the district where the petitioner is physically present and in custody.
• Rapp v. Honorable Francis L. VAN Dusen
  350 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-10 ·cited 67×
  The majority held that the respondent judge erred in denying a recusal request, even without a statutory violation, to avoid the appearance of partiality.
• In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL NO. 296). State OF Ariz. v. United States Dist. Court For the Dist. OF Ariz.
  688 F.2d 1297· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-01 ·cited 66×
• Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am.
  454 F.2d 1036· D.C. Cir.· 1971-11-24 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a motion to disqualify UMWA's house counsel was a failure to give full effect to the prior mandate, and granted the petition for relief.
• Provenzano v. Moore
  744 So. 2d 413· Fla.· 1999-09-24 ·cited 64×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  Execution by electrocution in Florida's electric chair as it presently functions does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment and therefore is not unconstitutional. Pain is the critical factor in evaluating methods of execution, and the record demonstrates that electrocution r
• United States v. Honorable Jack B. Weinstein
  452 F.2d 704· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-16 ·cited 62×
  The court held that it had discretionary jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate a district judge's order dismissing an indictment, as the order was beyond the judge's power and not a valid acquittal.
• Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel
  367 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 62×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Sanders v. Honorable Dan M. Russell
  401 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-18 ·cited 60×
  A district court rule limiting pro hac vice appearances of out-of-state attorneys in non-fee generating civil rights cases is invalid because it unreasonably restricts a litigant's right to counsel of choice and contravenes congressional intent.
• Sporck v. Peil
  759 F.2d 312· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the mere identification of documents reviewed by a witness in preparation for a deposition does not constitute opinion work product and is discoverable.
• Eligio Castro and Rafael Diaz Diaz v. United States
  775 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claims, enjoining them from further litigation, and assessing costs, as they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, state valid claims, or demonstrate grounds for injunctive relief.
• Bankruptcy v. The Honorable Marion S. Boyd
  248 F.2d 156· 6th Cir.· 1957-09-23 ·cited 56×
  The Court of Appeals held that mandamus is appropriate to review an interlocutory order denying a jury trial when the right to a jury trial is constitutionally guaranteed and the denial constitutes an exceptional circumstance. The Trustee is entitled to a jury trial on his cross-
• Rockbridge v. Lincoln
  449 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Commissioner of Indian Affairs' failure to regulate traders on the Navajo Reservation, and that sovereign immunity does not bar the action.
• Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States
  480 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discovery order, either by appeal or mandamus, due to the Expediting Act and the interlocutory nature of the order.
• United States v. United States Dist. Court FOR THE S. Dist. OF W. Va.
  238 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1956-11-13 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district judge's orders improperly interfered with the grand jury's investigative powers and the government counsel's functions, and that mandamus was an appropriate remedy.
• Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber OF Commerce, Inc.
  705 F.2d 1515· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the dismissal of claims was proper, and the injunction against relitigation was appropriate, though modified to clarify its scope.
• Delano v. Kitch
  663 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-23 ·cited 52×
  A director/officer who acts as a negotiator for a sale of corporate stock and accepts a secret finder's fee from the buyer, without disclosure and consent of all shareholders, breaches their fiduciary duty, even if other shareholders are majority owners selling their control inte
• Morrow v. Dist. OF Columbia
  417 F.2d 728· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-18 ·cited 52×
  The majority opinion established precedent for issuing orders regarding the dissemination of arrest records when a case is dismissed in favor of the defendant, asserting ancillary jurisdiction.
• Green v. Honorable John W. Murphy
  259 F.2d 591· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-25 ·cited 52×
  The concurring judges believe the petition should be decided on its merits now, finding the affidavit of prejudice insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings Involving Berkley & Co., Inc.
  629 F.2d 548· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 51×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order compelling disclosure of documents claimed to be privileged, and affirmed the order subject to qualifications.
• Genworth Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. TVPX ARS, Inc.
  959 F.3d 1318· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-26 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by enjoining TVPX's lawsuit based on res judicata without sufficient factual findings that Genworth's conduct had remained unchanged since the prior settlement.
• Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary
  699 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that it has the authority under the All Writs Act and its supervisory power to issue an injunction against a prolific litigant to prevent abuse of the judicial system, and that such an injunction does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of access to courts.
• Unified Sewerage Agency OF Wash. Cnty. v. Jelco Inc.
  646 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 50×
  The court held that an attorney may represent clients with adverse interests if both clients provide informed consent and it is obvious that the attorney can adequately represent both, balancing the client's right to counsel against the duty of loyalty.
• Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
  671 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 47×
• Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  723 F.2d 1068· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals as of right, and denied petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition, because the district court's denial of a stay was a discretionary order not subject to immediate appellate review.
• United States v. DeMIER
  671 F.2d 1200· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-10 ·cited 46×
  A district court retains jurisdiction to rule on a timely filed motion for sentence reduction under Rule 35, even if the ruling occurs more than 120 days after the sentence was imposed, provided the delay is reasonable and not solely attributable to the court.