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

• Murray v. Kunzig
  462 F.2d 871· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge maintains their original position, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of precedent and its implications for judicial oversight of the civil service.
• Ward v. Pa. NEW York Cent. Transp. Co.
  456 F.2d 1046· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's orders dismissing the complaint and enjoining further actions were proper, particularly the injunctions issued under the All Writs Statute to protect prior judgments.
• Union Camp Corp. v. Honorable Oren R. Lewis
  385 F.2d 143· 4th Cir.· 1967-11-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a lengthy continuance for a hearing on a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  907 F.2d 277· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court's injunction, channeling all litigation concerning the Consent Decree to the Southern District of New York, was a valid exercise of authority under the All Writs Act to protect its jurisdiction.
• John E. Burns Drilling Co. v. Cent. Bank OF Denver
  739 F.2d 1489· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss and denied a petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition, finding the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.
• Oswald v. McGARR
  620 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that an order approving a notice of settlement offer to individual subclass members is neither a final order nor a properly appealable collateral order, and a petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the order should be denied.
• Sec. Indus. Ass'n v. Clarke
  898 F.2d 318· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court improperly imposed a Rule 11 sanction on appellant's attorney because the legal arguments made were not frivolous, and the district court failed to provide adequate notice.
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• In re Diaz Contracting, Inc. v. Nanco Contracting Corp.
  817 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a debtor's financial difficulty alone is insufficient to overcome the presumptive validity of a forum selection clause, and that the district court erred in applying an abuse of discretion standard of review.
• DeNARDO v. Murphy
  781 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations and affirmed the district court's injunction against relitigating the claim.
• Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.
  775 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court retains jurisdiction to enjoin repetitive litigation of issues previously adjudicated, even if the current suit is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that attorney fees were properly awarded for frivolous filings.
• Minoru Yasui v. United States
  772 F.2d 1496· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-04 ·cited 14×
  The majority erred in applying the time limit for criminal appeals to appeals from denial of a writ of error coram nobis.
• Cal. Energy Comm'n v. Johnson
  767 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Bonneville Power Administration's 1983 wholesale power rates because they had not yet received final confirmation and approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The court also held that extraordinary circumstan
• In re Precision Screen Machs., Inc.
  729 F.2d 1428· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus would not be issued because there was no clear demonstration of abuse of discretion by the district court or frustration of appellate jurisdiction.
• Weldon Wiggins v. Cnty. OF Alameda
  717 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court has discretion to allocate the costs of compliance with a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and the magistrate did not abuse that discretion by imposing all costs on the state.
• In re Makari
  708 F.2d 709· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the Commissioner's petition decisions and that the All Writs Act was not applicable to preserve appellate jurisdiction.
• In re Sessions
  672 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a district court to allow non-stenographic depositions under Rule 30(b)(4) when the district court has not clearly abused its discretion.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Exxon Corp.
  636 F.2d 1336· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court may prohibit an attorney-client relationship between a parent company's counsel and a wholly-owned subsidiary subject to a hold separate order, if necessary to prevent conflicts of interest arising from potential divestiture.
• In re Hartford Textile Corp. v. Hartford Textile Corp.
  613 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-27 ·cited 14×
  A district court cannot sua sponte enjoin a party from filing further papers without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Margolis v. Banner
  599 F.2d 435· C.C.P.A.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it has the power to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition under the All Writs Act to preserve its appellate jurisdiction when a lower authority's action frustrates that jurisdiction. The ruling of abandonment was vacated.
• Reid C. Goodbar and Arthur M. Presley v. Banner
  599 F.2d 431· C.C.P.A.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus concerning a discovery order in a patent interference proceeding, as the matter is not ancillary to priority and thus not subject to appellate review.
• Waga Ole Godtfredsen v. Banner
  598 F.2d 589· C.C.P.A.· 1979-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court dismissed the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.
• Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  538 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 14×
  A writ of mandamus will not issue to vacate a district court's order transferring a cross-claim to the Court of Claims, as the district court had a rational and substantial legal argument for its jurisdictional decision, and the petitioner bypassed a direct appeal by requesting t
• Cook v. Dann
  522 F.2d 1276· C.C.P.A.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery.
• The DOW Chem. Co. v. Taylor
  519 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 14×
  A district court's discovery order compelling production of documents is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as effective review can be obtained after sanctions are imposed for non-compliance.
• Jennings v. Boenning & Co. & Boenning & Scattergood, Inc.
  482 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to restrain execution of a state court judgment, as neither the Securities Exchange Act's § 21(e) nor the Anti-Injunction Act's 'necessary in aid of jurisdiction' exception applied.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Guignon
  390 F.2d 323· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The Federal Trade Commission cannot, without the aid or consent of the Attorney General, seek enforcement of its own discovery subpoenas in the Federal District Courts.
• Harold C. Ackert for the benefit of Laura B. Smith v. Honorable Frederick van Pelt Bryan
  299 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The court denied a petition for mandamus seeking to stay a transfer of venue, finding that the transferee court must assume jurisdiction to consider the substantial question of Investment Company Act applicability, despite doubts.
• Hinton v. The Dep't OF Just. & the Fed. Bureau of Investigation
  844 F.2d 126· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 13×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the FBI's appeal of the district court's order compelling the preparation of a Vaughn index, as the order was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order.
• Gagliardi v. McWILLIAMS
  834 F.2d 81· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing an injunction against filing without providing the pro se plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to respond.
• Tarkowski v. Cnty. OF Lake
  775 F.2d 173· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants, as the plaintiff's suit was factually baseless and frivolous. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
• Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  357 F.2d 232· 5th Cir.· 1966-02-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the challenged orders of the Federal Power Commission requiring temporary retention of refunds are not ripe for judicial review because they do not determine the parties' rights to the refunds but merely establish a procedure for determining entitlement after
• United States v. Barnett
  330 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-09 ·cited 13×
  The Court of Appeals, being evenly divided, certifies a question to the Supreme Court regarding the right to a jury trial for criminal contempt charges arising from disobedience of a court order, where the acts also constitute a federal criminal offense.
• Stafford v. Superior Court OF State of Cal.
  272 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors of state trial courts and that the Declaratory Judgment and All Writs Acts do not confer jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.
• Est. OF Kyle Thomas Brennan v. Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc.
  645 F.3d 1267· 11th Cir.· 2011-07-07 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a federal district court's permanent injunction prohibiting a Florida state court from sanctioning an attorney for continuing to represent the Brennan Estate in a wrongful death action against the Church of Scientology. The district court had enjoine
• Williams v. State
  913 So. 2d 541· Fla.· 2005-09-29 ·cited 12×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed all writs petitions filed by Richard Williams and Christopher Curry challenging the legality of their sentences. The Court clarified that the all writs provision is not an independent source of jurisdiction but merely aids in exercising the Cou
• In re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  904 F.2d 826· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary's regulation defining substance addiction disorders is valid and not a sham to disguise non-acquiescence in circuit law, and that the district court erred in invalidating the regulation and imposing a remedial order.
• Filiberto Ojeda Rios v. Wigen
  863 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 12×
  A prior lengthy pretrial detention does not automatically render subsequent pretrial detention on new charges unlawful, even if the conduct was known previously.
• Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione Montonoave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Commissario of the Flotta Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Chandris (Italy)
  858 F.2d 905· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a foreign forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was reasonably communicated and enforceable, reversing the lower court's decision.
• Safir v. United States Lines Inc.
  792 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that section 810 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not provide an implied private right of action for restitution of subsidies paid by the government, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and modification of the injunction against futu
• Ayrton O. Reid v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  766 F.2d 113· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 12×
  A Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying a motion for a stay of deportation is not a "final order of deportation" reviewable by a court of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).
• Barclaysamerican Corp. v. Kane
  746 F.2d 653· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus or prohibition is not appropriate to review a discovery order compelling disclosure of documents claimed to be privileged, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial importance to the administration of justice.
• Town OF N. Bonneville v. United States Dist. Court
  732 F.2d 747· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Court's transfer of four causes to the U.S. Claims Court was clearly erroneous and constituted a judicial usurpation of power, warranting a writ of mandamus.
• In re Sosa
  712 F.2d 1479· D.C. Cir.· 1983-07-26 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. HAY
  702 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 12×
  Although the sentence has been served, the court held that the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to demonstrate collateral consequences justifying relief via a writ of error coram nobis.
• In re MacOn Uplands Venture v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  624 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's injunction against the debtor but dismissed the appeal of other issues as premature or not properly before the court.
• Crawford v. Delbert C. Jackson
  589 F.2d 693· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the expiration of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum does not automatically commence a federal sentence if the prisoner is not properly received for service of that sentence, and the sending state's jurisdiction remains uninterrupted.
• Cotler v. Inter-County Orthopaedic Ass'n, P.A.
  530 F.2d 536· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 12×
  Costs may be assessed in favor of a successful petitioner in a writ of mandamus proceeding against the actual respondent.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. The Honorable Miles W. Lord
  488 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an order granting a new trial is not a final decision subject to immediate appellate review under the final judgment rule.