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

• Inv. Props. Int'l, Ltd. v. IOS, Ltd.
  459 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating the plaintiffs' notice of deposition, thereby preventing discovery necessary to establish jurisdiction and standing.
• Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v. Civic Ctr. Theatre, Inc.
  333 F.2d 358· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that discovery orders are generally not appealable as final decisions and that mandamus is not warranted absent a clear abuse of discretion or abdication of judicial function.
• Great N. Ry. Co. v. Hyde
  238 F.2d 852· 8th Cir.· 1956-12-18 ·cited 34×
  The All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) does not provide a means to review a district court's order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if the transfer is erroneous.
• Clayton v. Honorable Wilson Warlick
  232 F.2d 699· 4th Cir.· 1956-04-09 ·cited 34×
  An application for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to review an interlocutory order transferring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will be denied, as such orders are not appealable and extraordinary writs cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.
• In re Goldberg v. Hon. Julius J. Hoffman
  225 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1955-08-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General due to their official residence outside the circuit, and that prosecutorial discretion vested in the U.S. Attorney is not subject to judicial review
• Coup v. Heckler
  834 F.2d 313· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 33×
• United States v. Greger
  657 F.2d 1109· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 33×
  A pre-indictment, pre-trial order disqualifying defense counsel in a criminal case is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it warrant a writ of mandamus.
• United States v. RMI Co.
  599 F.2d 1183· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 32×
  The district court erred by denying a protective order without examining the documents or considering their materiality and confidentiality.
• Brittingham v. United States Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  451 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the application for a writ of mandatory relief because it lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Cord v. Smith
  370 F.2d 418· 9th Cir.· 1966-12-15 ·cited 32×
• The Erie Bank v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Colo. & the Honorable William E. Doyle
  362 F.2d 539· 10th Cir.· 1966-06-24 ·cited 32×
  A counterclaim cannot be asserted by one claimant against the interpleading plaintiff because they are not opposing parties under Rule 13, F.R.Civ.P.
• Lipuma v. Am. Express Co.
  406 F. Supp. 2d 1298· S.D. Fla.· 2005-12-20 ·cited 31×
  The court approved the proposed class action settlement, finding it fair and reasonable after considering objections and evidence.
• In re Lonzy Oliver. Appeal of Lonzy Oliver
  682 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 31×
  A district court has the power to enjoin a litigious pro se prisoner from filing further cases under the All Writs Act, but such an order must provide the prisoner with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton
  608 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while probable cause existed for administrative search warrants, neither statutory nor inherent authority allowed the district court to order an employer to rescind its policy forbidding employees from wearing OSHA testing devices.
• Rohrer v. Perkins
  728 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a motion to remand a case to state court.
• Acton Corp. v. Borden, Inc.
  670 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 30×
  Orders staying litigation pending resolution of related issues in another federal court are generally not appealable, and mandamus is not warranted when the district court acted within its discretionary authority.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scholes
  601 F.2d 1151· 10th Cir.· 1979-07-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a dismissal without prejudice is appealable if refiling is impossible due to limitations or other factors.
• In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States
  584 F.2d 1366· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 30×
  The court should exercise discretion to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• United States v. Honorable Irving Hill
  473 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-21 ·cited 30×
  The government has no right to appeal because the defendants were placed in jeopardy when the trial judge dismissed the indictments after hearing evidence and ruling on the merits.
• J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. The United States Treas. Dep't
  439 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Customs Court has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to administrative decisions involving customs laws, including constitutional issues.
• Thomas v. United States
  271 F.2d 500· D.C. Cir.· 1959-10-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court did not err in denying a motion to be present at a hearing for a motion attacking a sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel when the appellant knowingly employed counsel for dual representation. It also held that motions attacking sente
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  750 F.2d 81· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 29×
  The Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over claims of unreasonably delayed agency action and bias, and the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
• Torres v. Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh
  221 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1955-04-13 ·cited 29×
  The court held that petitions for mandamus or prohibition to review discretionary transfer orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will be denied unless the case presents 'really extraordinary' circumstances justifying appellate intervention.
• United States v. Marcello
  876 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-23 ·cited 28×
  Convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) must be vacated if the underlying predicate offenses, such as mail or wire fraud, were based on the "intangible rights doctrine" rejected by the Supreme Court in McNally v. United States, and if the i
• Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court FOR the Dist. OF Nev.
  828 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 28×
  The court should not distinguish between state and federal judges regarding judicial immunity from prospective injunctive relief.
• Miss. Chem. Corp. v. Swift Agric. Chems. Corp.
  717 F.2d 1374· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 28×
  A patentee who has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of their patent in a prior proceeding where it was declared invalid is collaterally estopped from relitigating that issue.
• United States v. Honorable Fred M. Winner
  641 F.2d 825· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Deputy Attorney General's personal presence was not required, and the Assistant Attorney General's testimony was not sufficiently relevant at this stage, thus denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Maynard B. Melamed in Bankr. for Laub Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co.
  592 F.2d 290· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that appeals from orders denying motions to disqualify counsel, where the moving party cannot show a possibility of injury after an evidentiary hearing, will be dismissed as interlocutory.
• In re United States
  565 F.2d 173· 1st Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that mandamus was appropriate to compel the district court to vacate an order granting a new trial, as the evidence presented did not meet the standards for newly discovered evidence under Rule 33.
• Usery v. The Honorable Willis W. Ritter
  547 F.2d 528· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The Secretary of Labor is not required to disclose the identity of informants in an Equal Pay Act suit, as the government's interest in confidentiality outweighs the defendants' need for disclosure in this case.
• Am. Pub. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  555 F.2d 852· D.C. Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that venue was proper in the District of Columbia Circuit because, in the absence of a first-filing, the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice favored retention there, despite the Fifth Circuit's prior familiarity with related issues.
• Hartland v. Alaska Airlines
  544 F.2d 992· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the orders appealed were not final decisions, it could convert the appeal into a petition for mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to review the district court's actions.
• Kerr v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  511 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the district court's discovery order should be denied because the petitioners failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or usurpation of power sufficient to warrant such extraordinary relief.
• Duffy v. Tegtmeyer
  489 F.2d 745· C.C.P.A.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to issue a writ of mandamus in aid of its potential appellate jurisdiction, even if an appeal has not yet been perfected.
• Armstrong v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Birmingham
  323 F.2d 333· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-12 ·cited 28×
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal regarding desegregation efforts.
• In re Melvin
  546 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 27×
  A district court order compelling a suspect to appear in a lineup, issued ex parte without a prior grand jury directive, is beyond the court's authority.
• The United States v. Nils A. BOE
  543 F.2d 151· C.C.P.A.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 27×
  The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the Customs Court lacked jurisdiction because the protests were premature, as liquidation had not occurred and all liquidated duties had not been paid.
• Solomon v. Cont'l Am. Life Ins. Co.
  472 F.2d 1043· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be disturbed by writ of mandamus unless the court exceeded its authority or acted outside its jurisdiction, and the conditions imposed on costs were within the court's discretion.
• Arbelaez v. Butterworth
  738 So. 2d 326· Fla.· 1999-06-17 ·cited 26×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  When legislative action during pending litigation substantially changes the facts and circumstances underlying an all-writs petition for a moratorium on executions, the case becomes moot and the petition must be denied.
• Hirabayashi v. United States
  828 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that both Hirabayashi's curfew and exclusion convictions should be vacated because the government suppressed evidence showing the orders were based on racial prejudice rather than military necessity, and this suppression likely affected the Supreme Court's original
• Pub. Util. Comm'r OF Or. v. Bonneville Power Administration
  767 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to agency proceedings that could affect the court's future jurisdiction over final agency action lies exclusively with the court of appeals, even if the agency action is not yet final. The court also held that i
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Helstoski
  576 F.2d 511· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Speech or Debate Clause does not bar prosecution for agreeing to accept bribes in exchange for legislative acts, as the crime is the corrupt promise, not the performance of the act. It also found that the district court's evidentiary ruling did not constru
• In re Bertram Zweibon
  565 F.2d 742· D.C. Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 26×
  Mandamus is available to review the denial of a jury trial, and the petitioners did not waive their right to a jury trial on the issue of "good faith" because the defense was not properly pleaded and the jury demand was timely after the pleadings were deemed amended.
• Kaufman v. Hon. David N. Edelstein
  539 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The denial of a motion to quash subpoenas for expert witnesses is neither appealable nor subject to a writ of mandamus.
• United States v. Lasker
  481 F.2d 229· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing indictments under the Prompt Disposition Rules and that mandamus is appropriate to correct this error, as the government was not required to seek an extension before the six-month period expired and the court should have
• Petition of Grace Lines, Inc. v. Honorable Constance Baker Motley
  439 F.2d 1028· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 26×
  A juror's agreement to a verdict, even if influenced by the majority, is valid so long as it does not violate their honest conviction.
• Application of the United States for Relief
  427 F.2d 639· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked statutory authority to compel a communications carrier to assist in the interception of wire communications, even if the interception was judicially approved.
• Adam v. United States
  274 F.2d 880· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the exclusive remedy for a federal prisoner in custody, precluding relief via a writ of error coram nobis. A guilty plea waives factual challenges to the offense charged.
• United States v. Honorable James M. Carter
  270 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that even if mandamus is an available remedy, it would not be granted due to the significant hardship it would impose on defendants who have relied on probation orders for an extended period.