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

• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. PepsiCo, Inc.
  477 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent PepsiCo from exercising control over Rheingold was not warranted because the FTC failed to demonstrate that effective divestiture would be virtually impossible without such an injunction.
• Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hoyt W. Herrald
  434 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to join a party and amend a complaint is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Teas v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
  413 F.2d 1263· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly assumed jurisdiction and granted summary judgment, enjoining further proceedings in state court to protect and effectuate its prior judgment.
• Hewlett Akers v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  378 F.2d 78· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-05 ·cited 12×
  Denial of a transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was an abuse of discretion, and mandamus should issue to compel the transfer.
• United States v. Simon
  373 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would have affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a ninety-day injunction.
• Bistram v. People OF the State OF Minn.
  330 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts cannot intervene in pending state criminal proceedings to grant relief on speedy trial grounds when the defendant is incarcerated in federal prison.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court FOR E. Dist. OF Mich.
  264 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1959-03-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and not a substitute for appeal, and no extraordinary circumstances justified its issuance in this case.
• Morehead v. Honorable A. D. Barksdale
  263 F.2d 117· 4th Cir.· 1959-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  454 F. Supp. 2d 1185· S.D. Fla.· 2006-07-06 ·cited 11×
  The court awarded Class Counsel 31 1/3% of the settlement fund for attorneys' fees and 1.3% for incentive awards to Class Representatives, based on the case's complexity, duration, and benefits conferred.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon
  882 So. 2d 986· Fla.· 2004-09-02 ·cited 11×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  R.J. Reynolds challenged the Second District Court of Appeal's denial of its motion for a written opinion, seeking Florida Supreme Court review via extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the recent amendment to Rule 9.33
• In re Mr. and Mrs. DOE v. United States
  860 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Marcoses' head-of-state immunity was waived by the Philippine government and that they could not invoke the Philippine Constitution's self-incrimination privilege under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for a U.S. grand jury investigation.
• Lightfoot v. Walker
  797 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 11×
  A district court's decision to require a supersedeas bond pending appeal will not be reversed unless the judge abused their discretion.
• Simmons v. Ark. Power & Light Co.
  655 F.2d 131· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed federal statutory claims due to exclusive jurisdiction with the NRC and Courts of Appeals, and constitutional and state claims for failure to state a claim or lack of jurisdiction.
• Moye v. Clerk, DeKALB Cnty. Superior Court
  474 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-09 ·cited 11×
  A federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court clerk to produce documents when mandamus is the sole relief sought.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Shirley IVY v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co.
  996 F.2d 1425· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the removed cases under the All Writs Act to protect its prior judgment in the Agent Orange I class action. It also affirmed that plaintiffs manifesting injury after the settlement date were properly incl
• Harris v. Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys. & Fed. Reserve Bank of Chicago
  938 F.2d 720· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 10×
• Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
  921 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
• In re Atencio
  913 F.2d 814· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a stay pending appeal in a bankruptcy case when the district court acts in its appellate capacity.
• In re Pruitt
  910 F.2d 1160· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 10×
  A district court's sua sponte withdrawal of a reference from a bankruptcy court is improper if it occurs after the bankruptcy petition has been dismissed and an appeal is pending, as it lacks timeliness and cause.
• Debro Siddig Abdul-Akbar v. Watson
  901 F.2d 329· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's claims as frivolous and in issuing an injunction barring future filings without proper consideration of the inmate's access to the courts. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded.
• Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. OF Ariz.
  881 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there is no unavailability exception to the attorney-client privilege, even when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment. Statements made by corporate employees to counsel in anticipation of litigation are protected.
• In re Petition for Mandamus by Everett Mechem
  880 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 10×
  A writ of mandamus is not the proper vehicle to challenge an order disqualifying counsel because such orders are not immediately appealable and can be reviewed on appeal of a final judgment.
• In re Thornburgh
  869 F.2d 1503· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate because the district court's reference to special masters is not a clear usurpation of judicial power and the possibility of some valid relief cannot be confidently ruled out.
• Ramirez v. Rivera-Dueno
  861 F.2d 328· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1984 agreement was not a settlement agreement or consent decree, and therefore the district court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a trial.
• United States v. Sciarra
  851 F.2d 621· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the discovery order compelling testimony was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the petitioners were non-party witnesses to an investigation, not parties to an ongoing case, and the district court's business was complete. The recusal motion appeal was d
• Metro. Transp. Auth. & Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  792 F.2d 287· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has jurisdiction under Section 402(a) of the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) to determine compensation for Amtrak's use of Metro-North's facilities and that the statute is constitutional.
• United States v. Johnson
  732 F.2d 379· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 10×
  While a significant delay in preparing a trial transcript may violate due process, release from custody is not the proper remedy when the appeal itself lacks merit.
• Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp.
  710 F.2d 1561· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order compelling Baker Perkins to petition the PTO to revive an expired patent reissue application was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and that a writ of mandamus was premature.
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  710 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court must reconsider Zenith's motion for a preliminary injunction, evaluating all factors, not just irreparable harm.
• In re State OF S.D. v. Janklow
  692 F.2d 1158· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a writ of prohibition is not warranted because the district court's decision regarding the Eleventh Amendment was not a clear abuse of discretion and the issue was premature. The appeal by state officials was dismissed without prejudice.
• United States v. Taylor
  648 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a writ of coram nobis petition is untimely if filed during the pendency of a direct appeal of conviction, absent extraordinary circumstances.
• Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz
  590 F.2d 915· C.C.P.A.· 1979-01-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a petition for extraordinary writs is not an appeal, and thus the FTC's election to pursue a civil action under § 21 is a nullity, and the court has jurisdiction to consider the petition. However, the court denied the writs because the TTAB's decision was not
• United States v. Holland
  552 F.2d 667· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court judge has the authority under the Fourth Amendment to issue an order compelling a handwriting sample prior to arrest or indictment, and refusal to comply constitutes contempt.
• United States v. Mellon Bank
  545 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 10×
  A district court's order staying civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and extraordinary writs are not warranted absent a clear abuse of discretion.
• Silverman v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. & Samuel M. Kaynard
  543 F.2d 428· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's five-year delay in determining back pay awards violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its own prior judgment, warranting mandamus relief.
• Bancohio Corp. & the Ohio Nat'l Bank v. Honorable Noel P. FOX
  516 F.2d 29· 6th Cir.· 1975-05-08 ·cited 10×
  A federal court's jurisdiction on removal is derivative; if the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the federal court acquires none, even if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction.
• Rewak v. United States
  512 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-12 ·cited 10×
  A writ of error coram nobis should issue to allow resentencing under the Youth Corrections Act when the original sentencing court failed to make an explicit 'no benefit' finding, and the petitioner demonstrates manifest injustice due to collateral consequences.
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Honorable Miles W. Lord
  449 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing of the application for a writ of mandamus.
• In re the Complaint of N. Transatlantic Carriers Corp.
  423 F.2d 139· 1st Cir.· 1970-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dismissal of the counterclaim and set-off was premature and vacated the order, remanding for further proceedings.
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  422 F.2d 979· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prohibit a district court from granting an injunction pending appeal, even if it found it lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction below. The court also held that § 2, First, of the Railway Labor Act is not justiciable and d
• Desmond v. The United States Bd. OF Parole
  397 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1968-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that accrued good time credit is not vested and is subject to forfeiture, and that the sentence was properly computed under applicable statutes, thus affirming the denial of the petition.
• Benton Harbor Malleable Indus. v. Int'l Union
  355 F.2d 70· 6th Cir.· 1966-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an authorized appeal.
• Matter of MacNEIL Bros. Co.
  259 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1958-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it would not grant leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus because the petition was facially without merit and did not present an extraordinary situation.
• Furnish v. The Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs OF the State of Cal.
  257 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1958-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts cannot review state court decisions or enjoin state proceedings except in limited circumstances not present here.
• Int'l Union OF Elec. v. Underwood Corp.
  219 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1955-01-06 ·cited 10×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 unless expressly authorized by Congress or necessary in aid of its own jurisdiction, which requires the plaintiff to have a legally protected interest.
• Comfort Equip. Co. v. Steckler
  212 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-20 ·cited 10×
  Mandamus is an inappropriate remedy to review a trial court's venue determination prior to a final adjudication on the merits.
• Rohe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  988 F.3d 1256· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-18 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the All Writs Act cannot be invoked without an underlying proceeding over which the court has jurisdiction.
• In re Managed Care v. WellPoint, Inc.
  756 F.3d 1222· 11th Cir.· 2014-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's contempt order. The court affirmed the injunction as to Appellants' RICO and antitrust claims, finding they were released by the settlement agreement. However, the court vacated the injunction as to ce
• Commc'n Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  932 F.2d 199· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 9×
  The court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to grant summary judgment for AT&T on the Business Units grievances and to decide the summary judgment motion on the MMS grievances.
• Honorable C. William O'Neill v. Honorable Frank J. Battisti
  472 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the District Court improvidently issued a temporary restraining order and should have abstained from interfering with state court proceedings, granting a writ of mandamus to vacate the order and dismiss the action for lack of venue.