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

• Madigan v. Selvie W. Wells
  224 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition after a prior motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied.
• In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation BY AN Investigating Comm. OF the Jud. Council OF the Eleventh Cir. Betty Ann Williams & Alan Ehrlich v. Mercer
  783 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has exclusive original jurisdiction to enforce or quash subpoenas issued under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, and the Act's subpoena provisions are constitutional.
• The Sansom Comm. v. Lynn
  735 F.2d 1535· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the consent decrees and correctly interpreted the 1982 Consent Decree regarding the replacement of designees.
• Jett v. Castaneda
  578 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 25×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue discovery orders in a pre-indictment investigation, and therefore could not hold the warden in contempt.
• Roach v. Churchman
  457 F.2d 1101· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion for a consent judgment was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor was it an injunction or otherwise reviewable by mandamus or interlocutory appeal.
• Grate v. State
  750 So. 2d 625· Fla.· 1999-10-28 ·cited 24×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  Samuel Deleon Grate petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to review a per curiam affirmance without opinion by the Third District Court of Appeal. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review per curiam appel
• United States v. Osser
  864 F.2d 1056· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 24×
  A mail fraud conviction based on a scheme that demonstrably caused monetary loss to the victim, even if also charged under an invalidated 'honest services' theory, can be sustained.
• In re Innotron Diagnostics
  800 F.2d 1077· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The Federal Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of mandamus concerning the separation of patent issues for trial, even when intertwined with antitrust claims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering such separation.
• Loran W. Robbins v. The Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co.
  800 F.2d 641· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 24×
  The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act's (MPPAA) 'pay now, dispute later' scheme for withdrawal liability payments implicitly supersedes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d)'s automatic stay provision.
• Gen. Eng'g Corp. v. Martin Marietta Alumina, Inc.
  783 F.2d 352· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the federal standard for enforcing a forum selection clause and that the clause should be enforced under the applicable state law.
• In re Int'l Med. Prosthetics Research Assocs., Inc. v. Int'l Med. Prosthetics Research Assocs., Inc.
  739 F.2d 618· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 24×
  The court denied IMPRA's petition for a writ of mandamus and granted GORE's motion to dismiss it, finding no basis for extraordinary relief. The court also consolidated the petition and appeal, expedited the appeal, and ordered it heard on the original record.
• Boston Chapter v. Beecher
  679 F.2d 965· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had the power to modify prior consent decrees to prevent massive layoffs from undoing affirmative action progress, even if it superseded a state seniority statute.
• Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. Dasa Corp.
  605 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining plaintiffs from further harassing litigation based on previously adjudicated claims.
• In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States
  573 F.2d 936· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the grand jury investigation is a criminal matter, and the disqualification issue could be raised after indictment or via contempt. The court also found no ethical conflict of interest in an IRS l
• Maynard B. Melamed in Bankr. for Laub Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co.
  534 F.2d 82· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-27 ·cited 24×
  An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the disqualification issue.
• United States v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
  531 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a district court possesses inherent authority to compel a telephone company to provide assistance in installing a pen register, even if Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act does not apply.
• Barry v. United States
  528 F.2d 1094· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the judge's participation in the trial did not violate the mandatory disqualification statute or constitutional standards, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing or limiting discovery.
• Hamilton v. MacDONALD
  503 F.2d 1138· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Navajo Tribe's appeals lacked merit, affirming the district court's Order of Compliance and implementation plan, as prior rulings on jurisdiction and equitable relief were binding and the arguments raised were either foreclosed or without merit.
• Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp. (Defendant & Third-Party
  431 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the action without determining if the plaintiff had an unqualified right to bring the suit in the transferee district.
• Smoot v. Honorable Noel P. FOX
  353 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1965-12-13 ·cited 24×
  A district court cannot award attorney's fees and expenses as costs in an action at law, even if the action is dismissed with prejudice, as this would violate statutory limitations and the constitutional right to a jury trial.
• Great N. Ry. Co. v. Hyde
  245 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that despite the Supreme Court's decision in La Buy, it does not have the power to compel a district judge to vacate a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the transfer involves a discretionary exercise of judgment, even if potentially erroneous.
• In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc.
  864 F.2d 241· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to challenge a district court's order disqualifying counsel, as such orders are reviewable on appeal after final judgment and the petitioners failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a clear entitlement to relief.
• United States v. LEE
  786 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 23×
  The court found that while the Air Force is not constitutionally required to refer personnel for federal prosecution, its policy of exclusively using military justice creates an unfortunate impression of disparate treatment.
• United States v. Fernandez-Toledo
  737 F.2d 912· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the government has no right to appeal a district court order setting bail.
• United States v. Kane
  646 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court's discovery order, which did not explicitly exclude evidence and allowed for various sanctions, was not appealable under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 as it did not have the practical effect of excluding evidence, and mandamus was not appropriate to revi
• Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh
  948 F.2d 742· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the INS' administration of IRCA, as such challenges must be brought through the statutory administrative and judicial review process, typically in the courts of appeals.
• Appeal of Dist. of Columbia Nurses' Ass'n. Thelma Battle v. Dist. of Columbia
  854 F.2d 1448· D.C. Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an appeal must be dismissed if the notice of appeal fails to specify all parties' names, even if no prejudice results.
• In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litigation. Leon Namoff v. Merrill Lynch
  829 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in certifying the class action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) because the claims sought compensatory damages and did not present a limited fund situation sufficient for such certification.
• Evanson v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  619 F.2d 72· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order imposing sanctions for false interrogatory answers was not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable, and denied the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.
• Haggard v. State OF Tenn. & Honorable Joseph D. Duncan
  421 F.2d 1384· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts or their officers, and habeas corpus relief requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Honorable R. Dorsey Watkins
  373 F.2d 361· 4th Cir.· 1967-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to transfer the case to Ohio due to a significant change in conditions, specifically the impending simultaneous trial of related cases, which necessitated consolidation for judicial economy.
• Stallworth v. Moore
  827 So. 2d 974· Fla.· 2002-09-19 ·cited 21×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court consolidated four cases in which petitioners sought review of district court denials of relief issued as bare per curiam decisions without opinion or explanation. The Court held that it lacks discretionary review and extraordinary writ jurisdiction to re
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Wright II)
  654 F.2d 268· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court had the power to order a state judge to confer with a federal prosecutor regarding grand jury materials and that the procedure adopted did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
• Commercial Sec. Bank v. Walker Bank & Tr. Co.
  456 F.2d 1352· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a restraining order against the United States when the United States had not been served with process and had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  948 F.2d 98· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Consent Decree and the All Writs Act do not grant jurisdiction to an Administrator to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges, which should be handled by the NLRB.
• Yonkers Racing Corp. & St. Joseph's Seminary & Coll. v. City OF Yonkers
  858 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The majority found that removal of Article 78 proceedings was authorized by the All Writs Act, despite the general and civil rights removal statutes not applying.
• Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States
  837 F.2d 486· D.C. Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 20×
• United States v. United States Dist. Court
  717 F.2d 478· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not expand the scope of discovery beyond that permitted by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 in criminal cases; materiality is a prerequisite for discovery under Rule 16.
• United States v. Scherer
  673 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that newly discovered evidence did not demonstrate fundamental error sufficient to vacate the conviction, and prior rulings on the interpretation of the Gun Control Act and Fourth Amendment issues were controlling.
• United States v. Hon. Judge Almeric L. Christian
  660 F.2d 892· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rules 6 and 7, do not authorize the convening of an investigatory grand jury in the Virgin Islands, and even if they did, the government failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.
  611 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus directed to a district judge in another circuit, even if the cases were potentially transferable to that circuit.
• Prop-Jets, Inc. v. The Honorable Stephen S. Chandler
  575 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate to review the joinder order, and the appeal from that order was dismissed as interlocutory.
• Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing Installation & USE OF a PEN Register. United States v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  546 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-09 ·cited 20×
  The court found inherent authority to compel a telephone company's assistance for pen register surveillance outside Title III.
• In re Special March 1974 Grand Jury Possible Violations OF Title 18 & 26 v. Hon. James B. Parsons
  541 F.2d 166· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-24 ·cited 20×
  An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order denying an evidentiary hearing on alleged improper grand jury disclosures when a criminal indictment has been returned and the party can raise objections in future proceedings.
• Anschul v. Sitmar Cruises, Inc.
  544 F.2d 1364· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an order denying class action status is not immediately appealable under the death knell or collateral order doctrines, but may be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) if certified by the district court.
• Lopez v. Secretary OF Health
  512 F.2d 1155· 1st Cir.· 1975-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in requiring the Secretary to prove a claimant's realistic chance of being hired for available jobs; the statutory definition of disability focuses on the capacity to perform substantial gainful work, not actual employability.
• United States v. Travers
  514 F.2d 1171· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 20×
  A conviction obtained in violation of federal law, as clarified by a subsequent Supreme Court decision, can be challenged via a writ of error coram nobis even after the sentence has been served, provided the defendant exhausted direct appellate remedies.
• United States v. Prof'l AIR Traffic Controllers Org. (Patco)
  438 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the FAA from taking disciplinary action against air traffic controllers who participated in an unlawful work stoppage.
• Gaito v. Honorable Henry Ellenbogen
  425 F.2d 845· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the civil rights complaint, affirming the dismissal.
• Lampman v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  418 F.2d 215· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 20×
  Orders denying motions to quash grand jury subpoenas are interlocutory and not immediately appealable, nor are they subject to review under the All Writs Act.