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

• In re Grand Jury Subpoenas
  581 F.2d 1103· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that a writ of mandamus is not warranted absent a compelling showing of abuse of the grand jury process.
• Cmty. Broad. OF Boston, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  546 F.2d 1022· D.C. Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is an interlocutory order and not immediately appealable, absent exceptional circumstances warranting a writ of mandamus.
• The SEA Ranch Ass'n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
  537 F.2d 1058· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that abstention was proper for claims of project-wide exemption under the California Coastal Zone Act, but individual parcel exemption claims lacked a case or controversy and should have been dismissed.
• Ex parte Farrell
  189 F.2d 540· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an application for a certificate of probable cause, made after the statutory time limit for appeal has expired, cannot confer jurisdiction on the appellate court.
• Klaus v. Hi-Shear Corp.
  528 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions were improperly issued based on mistaken legal theories, particularly regarding irreparable harm and indispensable parties, and reversed or vacated several injunctions while affirming others.
• In re Ellsberg
  446 F.2d 954· 1st Cir.· 1971-08-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the All Writs Statute does not grant jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case, and that the defendant is not entitled to disclosure of alleged wiretapping or a hearing on its legality in a removal proceeding.
• Johnston v. Honorable Rabe F. Marsh
  227 F.2d 528· 3d Cir.· 1955-11-30 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district judge acted within his jurisdiction in admitting a state prisoner to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing.
• In re Dalton v. United States & Scott H. Phillips for Ariz. Fuels Corp.
  733 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's orders withdrawing reference and transferring venue, and that an extraordinary writ of mandamus was not warranted.
• In re Estelle
  516 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 43×
  Mandamus is inappropriate because the trial court's decision on the United States' right to intervene, even if erroneous, was not a usurpation of power and the petitioner suffers no irreparable harm.
• United States v. Taylor
  798 F.2d 1337· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the order denying motions to dismiss the indictment was not immediately appealable, as the alleged governmental improprieties did not fall under existing exceptions to the final judgment rule, including the exception created by United States v. Mechanik.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. U.S. Cutting Serv., Inc.
  782 F.2d 710· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 42×
  A judge cannot cure a Section 455(b) disqualification by divesting a financial interest; such divestiture is not a permissible cure under the statute.
• Rocco J. DeMASI, M.D. v. Weiss
  669 F.2d 114· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 42×
  The court denied the petition for mandamus regarding class certification, finding no extraordinary circumstances and available alternative appeals. It retained jurisdiction over the discovery order petition, staying its effect pending further proceedings.
• Swindell-Dressler Corp. v. Honorable Edward Dumbauld
  308 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1962-09-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court lost jurisdiction by transferring a case without affording the aggrieved party notice and an opportunity to be heard, violating due process.
• Roberts v. Corrine Brown
  43 So. 3d 673· Fla.· 2010-08-31 ·cited 41×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-election challenges to citizen-initiative constitutional amendments, and prohibited a circuit court from considering a declaratory action seeking to remove two proposed amendments from the ballot. The Cour
• United States v. Garmany
  762 F.2d 929· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to pay travel fees for inmate witnesses did not violate the Sixth Amendment's compulsory process clause, absent a showing of indigency and prejudice. The court also held that the denial of a continuance and other evidentiary rulings did n
• Cent. Lincoln Peoples' Util. Dist. v. Johnson
  735 F.2d 1101· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 41×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review BPA rates before they are confirmed and approved by FERC, and that FERC properly applied a narrow scope of review to the regional rates.
• Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass'n
  635 F.2d 1295· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 41×
  A bona fide litigant has a right to use discovery materials from a collateral action, under the same restrictions as the original litigants, if the materials are relevant and not privileged.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings United States
  626 F.2d 1051· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while the physician's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled authentication of his personal business records, this protection can be overcome by a grant of use immunity. The court also held that the district court prope
• United States v. Sherman
  581 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court's order prohibiting the news media from contacting or interviewing jurors after a trial concluded was clearly erroneous and vacated the order via a writ of mandamus.
• Application of the United States In the Matter of an Order Authorizing the USE OF A PEN Register or Similar Mech. Device
  538 F.2d 956· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Telephone Company to assist in installing a pen register, as such an order is authorized by the All Writs Act and was necessary to implement the court's jurisdiction.
• Stans v. Hon. Lee P. Gagliardi
  485 F.2d 1290· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-11 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge would grant a writ of mandamus to postpone the trial date to allow adequate time for defense preparation.
• Silva v. Romney
  473 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1973-02-02 ·cited 40×
  A private developer, partnered with a federal agency for a housing project, can be enjoined from taking actions affecting the environment pending the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
• United States v. Angelita Martinez-Zayas
  857 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum, as the quantity of cocaine triggered the mandatory ten-year sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
• United States v. Harper
  729 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-03 ·cited 39×
  The court granted the writ, finding the district court's order would materially affect jury selection and raise complex constitutional questions.
• W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Milgo Elec. Corp. & Int'l Commc'ns Corp.
  568 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's partial summary judgment order was neither a final decision under the collateral order doctrine nor an appealable interlocutory order refusing an injunction.
• United States v. Honorable Jon O. Newman
  549 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-25 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate purposeful exclusion of Black veniremen by the prosecutor, and thus the district court erred in ordering the disallowance of peremptory challenges based on that evidence.
• United States ex rel. Lois Sero v. Preiser
  506 F.2d 1115· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the combination of extended reformatory sentences for young adult misdemeanants and identical conditions of confinement as adult misdemeanants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Rosen v. Cascade Int'l, Inc.
  21 F.3d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1994-04-11 ·cited 38×
  Shareholders of Cascade International brought a class action against Dr. Lawrence Moses and others for securities fraud arising from allegedly fraudulent financial statements and unauthorized stock issuances that inflated the company's stock price. The district court granted a pr
• In re Claus von Bulow v. Claus von Bulow
  828 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications, not used in litigation, does not waive the privilege for undisclosed portions. The district court abused its discretion by extending the waiver beyond the published material.
• In re Davis
  730 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the asbestos workers failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to extraordinary relief from the bankruptcy court's stay orders, and that adequate alternative remedies were available.
• U. S. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the S. Dist. OF Cal.
  345 F.2d 18· 9th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while grand jury secrecy is important, it is not absolute and can be overcome by a showing of need, especially when the reasons for secrecy are inapplicable or diminished. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering disclosure of a pre-sentenci
• In re Watkins
  271 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1959-11-24 ·cited 38×
  The Court held that a comprehensive reference of the entire case to a Master was an abuse of discretion, nullifying the right to an effective jury trial.
• Massey-Harris-Ferguson v. Hon. Marion Speed Boyd
  242 F.2d 800· 6th Cir.· 1957-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, finding it inadvisable to rule on the jurisdiction issue at this interlocutory stage.
• Baxter v. United Forest Prods. Co., Inc.
  406 F.2d 1120· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-03 ·cited 37×
  A federal court cannot sequester funds in a diversity action without complying with state attachment laws, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 mandates adherence to state law for such provisional remedies.
• Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc.
  975 F.2d 81· 3d Cir.· 1992-09-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in reconsidering the magistrate's order by considering new evidence and applying an incorrect standard for the crime-fraud exception, thus granting the writ of mandamus.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  931 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The Affiliates are bound by the Consent Decree's election provisions because the IBT adequately represented the collective membership's interests, and the provisions concern international governance rather than local union matters.
• United States v. Bush
  888 F.2d 1145· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 36×
  The court held that difficulty in obtaining desirable employment due to a conviction does not constitute a legal disability sufficient to justify a writ of error coram nobis when the petitioner is no longer in custody.
• Hunt v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  799 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, denied the request for a stay, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and directed the transfer of bankruptcy cases to the Northern District of Texas.
• Levine v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  764 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that attorneys' speech can be restrained by gag orders to prevent the risk of eliminating a fair trial before an impartial jury.
• In re Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  709 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering extensive discovery and a deposition as conditions for enforcing an EEOC subpoena, as the company failed to make a substantial showing of abuse.
• Cheyney State Coll. Faculty & E. Sonny Harris & Arthur M. Bagley & Ernest Berry v. Hufstedler
  703 F.2d 732· 3d Cir.· 1983-03-30 ·cited 36×
  A district court's stay order pending administrative proceedings is not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but may be reviewed via writ of mandamus if the district court clearly abused its discretion.
• In re Multi-Piece Rim Prods. Liab. Litig. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
  612 F.2d 377· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-07 ·cited 36×
  Orders denying motions to disqualify counsel are generally not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, except in exceptional cases of irreparable harm.
• Arthur Young & Co. v. United States Dist. Court
  549 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate clear and indisputable error in the district court's class certification order, which separated certain issues for class-wide adjudication and reserved others for individual determination.
• Nguyen DA YEN v. Kissinger
  528 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the habeas corpus statute and that plaintiffs' attorneys must have access to children's records to determine claims of illegal detention.
• Dellinger v. Mitchell
  442 F.2d 782· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 36×
  A district court's stay order is improper if it is immoderate in duration and scope, particularly when applied to parties not involved in the related criminal case or when it extends beyond the trial phase of the criminal proceedings.
• United States v. Sears
  785 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 35×
  A superseding indictment is timely if it does not broaden or substantially amend the original charges, and an appellate court may order a case reassigned to a different judge on remand for the appearance of justice.
• In re Bendectin Prods. Liab. Litig.
  749 F.2d 300· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should be issued to vacate the district court's order certifying a class action for settlement purposes because the district court's determination of a limited fund under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) was clearly erroneous as a matter of law due to a lac
• In re Uranium Antitrust Litig. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. RIO Algom Ltd.
  617 F.2d 1248· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 35×
  A default judgment against some joint tortfeasors cannot be entered while liability for others remains undecided, as this would improperly sever a single claim.
• Fla. Med. Ass'n, Inc. v. U. S. Dep't OF Health
  601 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court lacked authority to issue an "ancillary writ of injunction" outside the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and vacated the writ.
• Boreri v. Fiat S.P.A.
  763 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's discovery orders were interlocutory and did not meet the criteria for the collateral order doctrine or mandamus relief.