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

• United States v. RE
  372 F.2d 641· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that appellants' claims of constitutional violations lacked merit and affirmed the denial of their motion.
• The Chem. & Indus. Corp. v. Honorable John H. Druffel
  301 F.2d 126· 6th Cir.· 1962-03-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district judge's discovery orders, while potentially broad, were within his jurisdiction and did not warrant mandamus or prohibition, as appeal remains an adequate remedy.
• Twelve John Does v. Dist. OF Columbia
  841 F.2d 1133· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in reinstating the Attorney General under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because the prior dismissal order did not have prospective application and the circumstances did not constitute extraordinary grounds for relief.
• J. H. Cohn & Co. Self-Employment Ret. Tr. v. Am. Appraisal Assocs., Inc.
  628 F.2d 994· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that mandamus relief was inappropriate to compel class certification and reversed the dismissal of the second action, finding the statute of limitations defense barred by estoppel.
• In re Vuitton ET Fils S.A.
  606 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 19×
  A plaintiff is entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order when a proper showing of immediate and irreparable injury is made and notice is impracticable, particularly in trademark infringement cases where confusion is likely.
• Rosenfeld v. United States
  859 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an interim attorney's fee award under the Freedom of Information Act is not a final, appealable order, and that such awards are permissible and do not violate sovereign immunity or the Judgment Fund statute.
• United States v. BNS Inc.
  858 F.2d 456· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
• V.N.A. OF Greater Tift Cnty., Inc. v. Heckler
  711 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the standard for issuing a status quo injunction pending administrative review should not require a "virtually certain" case, especially when administrative review would otherwise be meaningless.
• The Radio & Television News Ass'n of S. Cal. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  781 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 18×
  Restraints on trial participants' extrajudicial statements to the media, while indirectly affecting media access, do not infringe the First Amendment freedom of the press.
• City of LAS Vegas v. Honorable Roger D. Foley
  747 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that discovery into the subjective motivations of legislators for enacting a zoning ordinance is generally impermissible, even in First Amendment challenges, and that mandamus is appropriate to prevent such discovery.
• Stanton Story v. Robinson
  689 F.2d 1176· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 18×
  Federal courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum compelling state custodians to produce prisoners for testimony, and custodians must comply by transporting prisoners to the nearest jail, even at their own expense.
• Inocencio Fernando Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc.
  650 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the refusal to enjoin proceedings in the district court is not an appealable interlocutory order, but the refusal to enjoin proceedings in other American courts is appealable and was not an abuse of discretion; mandamus is not proper for challenging the forum
• United States v. Finazzo
  583 F.2d 837· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 may implicitly authorize surreptitious entry for electronic surveillance, such entry must be expressly approved in the court order authorizing the interception. Without express approval,
• United States v. Sams
  521 F.2d 421· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 18×
  A guilty plea does not bar collateral attack on a conviction when the underlying conduct is later deemed constitutionally protected, but a claim for refund of a fine is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Mitchell v. Honorable John J. Sirica
  502 F.2d 375· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 18×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.
• Donnelly v. Honorable Barrington D. Parker
  486 F.2d 402· D.C. Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district judge properly exercised discretion in denying a request for a physical and mental examination of the plaintiff, as the petitioner's claim lacked substance.
• Pasha v. United States
  484 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in treating the coram nobis motion as a Tucker Act claim for economic restitution, thereby avoiding piecemeal litigation.
• In re Schokbeton Indus., Inc. v. Schokbeton Prods. Corp.
  466 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-16 ·cited 18×
  A bankruptcy referee cannot indefinitely postpone a debtor's contractual obligations, and the filing of a Chapter XI petition does not automatically extend cure periods for defaults under executory contracts.
• Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. 89 v. York
  429 F.2d 66· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the injunctive orders and contempt adjudications but reduced the fines imposed on the parents, finding the original penalties harsh and excessive.
• United States v. Grand Jury
  425 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the order denying the motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Loshbough v. Allen
  404 F.2d 1400· C.C.P.A.· 1969-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while it has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction, such a writ is not necessary or appropriate under the present circumstances.
• Howes Leather Co., Inc. v. Honorable Walter J. LA BUY
  226 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1955-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a congested calendar and complex issues, without more, do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying reference to a master under Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. The Republic OF THE Philippines
  951 F.2d 1414· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 17×
  Disclosure of information protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to government agencies waives those protections completely, not just as to the government.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  948 F.2d 1338· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 17×
  The court vacated the sanctions order and remanded because the district court failed to conduct separate analyses for sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and improperly applied Rule 11 to parties who did not sign the offending documents.
• Central South Carolina Chapter v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF S.C.
  551 F.2d 559· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Society, as a non-party, lacked standing to appeal the interlocutory order. The judge concurred that the facts were undeveloped but dissented on the dismissal, arguing for appellate jurisdiction and remand.
• In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. v. Rubin Schron
  873 F.3d 1325· 11th Cir.· 2017-10-19 ·cited 16×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against real-estate investor Rubin Schron in a complex bankruptcy adversary proceeding arising from a "bust-out" scheme in which nursing-home operators transferred assets to judgment-proof entities to evade liability for $
• Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.853(d)(1)(A) (Postconviction DNA Testing). Dean C. Wilson v. State
  857 So. 2d 190· Fla.· 2003-09-30 ·cited 16×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court consolidates petitions seeking amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 regarding postconviction DNA testing and invokes its rulemaking jurisdiction to address the urgent matter. The Court suspends enforcement deadlines to preserve physical
• United States v. Wilfredo Felix Ayala
  894 F.2d 425· D.C. Cir.· 1990-01-12 ·cited 16×
  A federal criminal defendant cannot use the common law writ of audita querela to challenge a conviction if the grounds for challenge are cognizable under existing federal postconviction remedies like 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• United States v. Walgren
  885 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the mail fraud conviction must be vacated because it was based on a scheme that did not violate the mail fraud statute as interpreted by McNally v. United States, and that the RICO conviction must also be vacated due to the mail fraud conviction being vacated.
• Anant Kumar Tripati v. Beaman
  878 F.2d 351· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while district courts have broad discretion to impose restrictions on vexatious litigants, such restrictions must be accompanied by clear guidelines for obtaining permission to file and the litigant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• M.M. Winter v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  851 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Winona Bridge is not a rail carrier and cannot invoke the trackage rights class exemption.
• In re United States
  816 F.2d 1083· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that referring dispositive motions to a special master in a non-jury case, absent exceptional circumstances, constitutes an abuse of discretion under Rule 53(b).
• Armster v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  806 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a motion to vacate its prior decision as moot should be denied because the cessation of the challenged conduct was voluntary and occurred after the decision was issued, and the case presented important constitutional questions that should not be expunged.
• United States v. Sutton
  786 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 16×
  A debtor in Chapter 11 reorganization is not entitled to a monthly allowance for the support of his spouse from the bankruptcy estate.
• In re Ford Motor Co.
  751 F.2d 274· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court denied Ford's petition for a writ of mandamus, finding that the denial of a motion to disqualify counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying such a drastic remedy.
• Badgley v. Varelas
  729 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the District Court's remedial orders were vacated and remanded with directions to implement an intake ban for the county jail to enforce the consent judgment's population limit, finding that such a ban is the most effective remedy.
• C.P.C. P'ship & Bardot Plastics, Inc. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc.
  719 F.2d 400· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 16×
  An interlocutory order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is not an appealable final order. The appeal is dismissed.
• DOE v. Bd. on Prof'l Responsibility of the Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals
  717 F.2d 1424· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the federal claim but vacated its decisions on local law claims, finding an abuse of discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction over unsettled questions of District of Columbia law.
• Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Duncan
  714 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
• United States v. Honorable Lee R. West
  672 F.2d 796· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in ordering the disclosure of Office of Professional Responsibility files, as they were not relevant to the defendant's motion for a new trial or his defense.
• Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp. & Purolator, Inc.
  676 F.2d 877· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief against employer retaliation while a Title VII charge is pending before the EEOC, even before a right-to-sue letter has been issued.
• In re Establishment Inspection of Metro-East Mfg. Co. In The Matter of Establishment Inspection of Century Casting Corp.
  655 F.2d 805· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that the regulation clearly permits the use of personal sampling devices.
• Hamilton v. MORIAl
  644 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that all federal district court actions concerning unconstitutional prison overcrowding in Louisiana must be consolidated and transferred to a single judge in the Middle District of Louisiana to ensure proper judicial administration and constitutional protection.
• Canadian Tarpoly Co. v. U. S. Int'l Trade Comm'n
  640 F.2d 1322· C.C.P.A.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate because meaningful alternative legal remedies exist, and mandamus cannot be used to circumvent normal appeal procedures or challenge an agency's discretionary remedy choice.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. G. C. George Sec., Inc.
  637 F.2d 685· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 16×
  The district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider enjoining an SEC administrative proceeding; it has jurisdiction and must determine whether to exercise it or apply the exhaustion doctrine.
• Kechijian v. Califano
  621 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• Ford v. Carballo
  577 F.2d 404· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable expenses incurred in transporting and guarding a state prisoner for a federal civil proceeding when a writ necessitates the prisoner's presence.
• Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. United States
  565 F.2d 385· 6th Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the case was moot and did not fit the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception, nor did the district court have the authority to compel participation in a government investigation.
• Plekowski v. Ralston-Purina Co.
  557 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy for the alleged errors, and the denial of class certification is appealable in the ordinary course after final judgment.
• Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co.
  502 F.2d 178· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an injunction improperly allowed an appeal of an otherwise unappealable venue decision, violating the finality rule.