All Writs Act

696 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 31 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hayes Williams v. McKEITHEN
  939 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly issued because it lacked legal basis, supporting evidence, and proper notice and hearing to the affected parties.
• Kemp v. Peterson
  940 F.2d 110· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the injunction and accounting order but remanded for factual findings regarding the asset freeze. Officers can be held individually liable under the Act.
• Sierra Rutile Ltd. v. Shimon Y. Katz
  937 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 4×
  The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the district court's actions did not warrant mandamus and that Section 16 of the FAA did not apply.
• United States v. Ewart Mark Holder
  936 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The writ of audita querela is not available to vacate a conviction based solely on equitable grounds or subsequent ineligibility for a statutory benefit, absent a legal defect in the original judgment.
• Polur v. Hyman Raffe
  912 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims based on a contempt order and sanctions judgment are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata, and that claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint but modified the injunction against furthe
• Weitzman v. Stein
  897 F.2d 653· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 4×
  An injunction freezing a party's assets was improperly entered because it lacked notice to the party and the court failed to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law, and because personal jurisdiction had not been sufficiently established.
• Eladio Colon v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  877 F.2d 148· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the Secretary's appeal from a remand order, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the Secretary to reopen a prior final decision denying benefits.
• The State OF N.C. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  881 F.2d 1250· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 4×
  A single circuit judge denied a motion for a temporary stay of administrative proceedings, finding that interlocutory review of the non-final procedural order was not warranted because the administrative process itself could address the alleged taint of ex parte communications.
• In re Perry
  859 F.2d 1043· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative law judge's protective orders, as applied to restrict union campaign literature and exclude a representative, constituted a usurpation of power and violated the First Amendment.
• Instrumentation Assocs., Inc. v. Madsen Elecs. (Canada) Ltd.
  859 F.2d 4· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a forum selection clause is enforceable even if the choice of law provision within it is ambiguous, as long as the chosen forum is valid.
• United States v. BNS Inc.
  848 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court held that the district court had authority to issue a preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act to preserve its jurisdiction under the APPA, and modified the injunction by appointing an independent trustee.
• Sharp Corp. v. The United States
  837 F.2d 1058· Fed. Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting preliminary injunctions because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury from complying with administrative review directives.
• Carter v. Attorney General OF the United States
  782 F.2d 138· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of error coram nobis for a conviction obtained in a different federal district court, and that claims attacking an injunction issued by a federal court in another circuit are barred by collateral estoppel.
• Orison F. McDONALD, II v. Burrows
  731 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature and thus do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, nor can delays in extradition be reviewed in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
• United States v. Santarelli
  729 F.2d 1388· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's order for an in camera hearing did not present a case or controversy, and therefore the appeal and petition for writ of mandamus were dismissed. The court clarified that the ambiguity of the order did not permit assuming an intent to exclu
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Gilberto Uresti
  724 F.2d 1157· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the denial of the motion to quash the subpoena or the motion for return of property, and also lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  725 F.2d 1392· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 4×
  Guardians ad litem can be awarded fees regardless of the litigation's outcome, as they are court officers tasked with protecting minors.
• Procup v. Strickland
  567 F. Supp. 146· M.D. Fla.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a litigant's repeated filing of frivolous and vexatious claims, coupled with other abuses of the judicial process, warrants an injunction prohibiting further filings.
• Monroe R. Meyerson v. Werner
  683 F.2d 723· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a deed intended as security under New York law must be considered a mortgage, regardless of parties' intent or judicial approval.
• Daiflon, Inc. v. The Honorable Luther Bohanon
  612 F.2d 1249· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the extraordinary writ of mandamus is not appropriate to review an order granting a new trial based solely on the judge's dissatisfaction with the verdict amount or perceived evidentiary issues, absent a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial powe
• Byron T. and Helen I. Anderson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  693 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that taxpayers' claims of being misled by advisors do not constitute fraud on the court, and absent timely appeals or proof of fraud, Tax Court decisions become final.
• United States v. Castaneda
  571 F.2d 444· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-05 ·cited 4×
  The court is investigating alleged misconduct by members of the bar and judicial officers in relation to a series of ex parte filings and contempt proceedings.
• Caleshu v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin
  549 F.2d 93· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that venue for individual tax refund suits against the United States is proper only in the plaintiff's district of residence, and a transfer for convenience is not permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(2).
• Breed v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  542 F.2d 1114· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition should be denied because the claim of privilege was not sufficiently specific and extraordinary relief was not warranted.
• United States & W. Elec. Co. v. Dorgan
  522 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-10 ·cited 4×
  A single federal judge lacks jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of a state statute when the relief sought is a declaration of unconstitutionality, as this requires a three-judge district court.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  520 F.2d 1388· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the reorganization court had the power to enjoin prosecution of the shareholder's claim and did not abuse its discretion.
• David v. Travisono
  495 F.2d 562· 1st Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a protective order under the All Writs Act to prevent retaliation against inmate plaintiffs was permissible, the specific language of the order was too vague and akin to a preliminary injunction, requiring specific factual findings not present.
• Denzil R. Allen v. Rolland F. VanCANTFORT
  420 F.2d 525· 1st Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 4×
  Civilian courts should not entertain habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners until all available military remedies have been invoked, even if constitutional claims are raised.
• Schlagenhauf v. Cale J. Holder
  321 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court should issue a writ of mandamus because the district court abused its discretion by ordering physical and mental examinations without sufficient inquiry into the 'good cause' requirement.
• Petition of William G. Gregory for a Writ of Mandamus Against the Honorable Edward J. Dimock
  286 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a stay of an indigent seaman's action for costs from a prior dismissed case was improper and should be vacated.
• Fisher v. The Honorable John W. Delehant
  250 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1957-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the All Writs Act is not a substitute for an interlocutory appeal and extraordinary relief is not warranted for a discretionary discovery ruling absent exceptional circumstances.
• Hayman v. United States
  241 F.2d 188· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were frivolous and that the district court's certification of bad faith for an appeal was proper.
• Radio Corp. OF Am. v. Hon. Michael L. Igoe
  217 F.2d 218· 7th Cir.· 1954-11-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that petitions for extraordinary writs should be carefully screened at the outset to prevent abuse and delay.
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia v. Cap. Transit Co.
  214 F.2d 242· D.C. Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining the company from paying a dividend and redeeming bonds, pending further investigation and report.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1336· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin CIGNA from proceeding with a settlement in another federal court that threatens the jurisdiction and integrity of this multidistrict litigation.
• State v. Arduengo
  609 So. 2d 651· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-10-14 ·cited 3×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The State petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a nonfinal order vacating a sentence, arguing the circuit court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the State's position well-taken.
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  796 F. Supp. 1491· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority to enjoin state court and administrative proceedings that interfere with its prior desegregation orders, even if those proceedings involve state law claims or procedural objections.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  954 F.2d 801· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's order enforcing the Independent Administrator's decision was proper, as Star Market received adequate procedural safeguards and its arbitration award was preempted by the Consent Decree's Election Rules.
• Mortgs., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court FOR THE Dist. OF Nev. (LAS Vegas)
  934 F.2d 209· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 3×
  A qui tam plaintiff in a False Claims Act action cannot be subjected to third-party complaints seeking indemnification or contribution from the qui tam plaintiff for alleged fraud against the government.
• Theodore and Janice Frutiger v. Hamilton Cent. Sch. Dist. & Thomas E. Sobel
  928 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's order denying an evidentiary hearing was procedural and not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Zagano v. Fordham Univ. & George N. Gordon
  900 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal and subsequently dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
• United States v. Golden
  854 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a prisoner's allegations of counsel's failure to file a timely Rule 35 motion, despite repeated assurances, state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting a hearing.
• Bryan v. Governor Ron DeSantis
  343 So. 3d 127· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-05-25 ·cited 2×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The court denied a petition seeking to overturn the Governor's "blanket policy" of denying clemency applications for murderers and felony sex offenders. The court found that the "all writs" jurisdiction was not applicable and that the Governor has broad discretion in clemency dec
• In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
  220 F. Supp. 2d 414· S.D. Fla.· 2013-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a new account agreement, which did not contain an arbitration clause, superseded a prior agreement that did, thus there was no agreement to arbitrate.
• Delta Health Grp., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  459 F. Supp. 2d 1207· N.D. Fla.· 2006-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because they arose under the Medicare Act and were subject to the exclusive review provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), which requires administrative exhaustion.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs
  404 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 2005-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appropriate remedy for the Corps' violation of NEPA was to set aside the permit, remand for further proceedings, and enjoin further construction pending adequate environmental review, with exceptions for Scripps' buildings.
• Ned Guilford v. State
  908 So. 2d 588· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-08-12 ·cited 2×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition filed by Ned Guilford, clarifying a prior order that prohibited him from filing any further pro se pleadings challenging his convictions and sentences. The court found that Guilford's attempt to circumvent the prohibition
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Pfizer Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  977 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 2×
  Mandamus is a proper means to review a district judge's refusal to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. § 455, as the appearance of partiality harms public confidence in the judiciary, which cannot be cured by appeal after final judgment.
• Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  965 F.2d 1224· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin arbitration when such arbitration would interfere with the court's ability to adjudicate a RICO consent decree. The court affirmed the district court's decision.
• United States v. Drobny
  955 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Drobny's collateral attack on his securities fraud conviction lacked merit, affirming the denial of his motion to vacate sentence.