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

• Theriault v. State OF Miss.
  390 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 9×
  Relief under the All Writs Statute or coram nobis is unavailable to attack a state court conviction for which the sentence has been fully served.
• Ples Elworth Russell and Roy Russell v. United States
  308 F.2d 78· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-12 ·cited 9×
  The court denied a motion for probation and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum because it lacked jurisdiction over the matters presented.
• Arrington R. Wells v. State
  132 So. 3d 1110· Fla.· 2014-01-16 ·cited 8×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for discretionary review, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review unelaborated per curiam dismissals from district courts of appeal that merely cite to cases not pending review, statutes, or rules without discussing the facts or
• Schiavo Ex Rel. Schindler v. Schiavo
  358 F. Supp. 2d 1161· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims.
• Jones v. Butterworth
  691 So. 2d 481· Fla.· 1997-04-10 ·cited 8×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  Leo Alexander Jones challenged the constitutionality of execution by electrocution in Florida's electric chair. The Florida Supreme Court denied his challenge as procedurally barred but, due to prior incidents of flames erupting during executions, remanded to the trial court for
• United States v. Michaud
  925 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate fundamental error warranting a writ of error coram nobis, as his claims were either previously decided on direct appeal or insufficiently specific.
• In re United States
  872 F.2d 472· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court's order denying a writ of mandamus to dismiss the complaint was correct, the order directing parties to proceed with discovery should be vacated because further discovery would inevitably lead to disclosure of information protected by
• United States v. Stoneman
  870 F.2d 102· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the jury instructions on mail fraud were erroneous under McNally, the appellant failed to demonstrate fundamental error justifying relief via a writ of error coram nobis because the indictment and evidence supported a conviction based on tangible monetar
• In re Gillis
  836 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue, requiring dismissal of the underlying federal action because principles of comity, augmented by the Tax Injunction Act, bar federal courts from interfering with state tax administration.
• In re Willy
  831 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it would not intervene in the administrative process to review a discovery dispute, as extraordinary circumstances and irreparable injury were not shown.
• MacZko v. Joyce
  814 F.2d 308· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a disputed or unliquidated claim for backpay does not constitute a 'duty owed' to the plaintiff for purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361).
• Benjamin v. Malcolm
  803 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from issuing injunctive relief against state officials when necessary to remedy violations of federal constitutional rights, even if state law is also implicated.
• In re GTE Serv. Corp.
  762 F.2d 1024· D.C. Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to stay an agency order is improper when an adequate statutory remedy, such as a petition for review, exists. The court also clarified that it lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay without a pending petition for review.
• The State OF NEW York v. Shore Realty Corp. & Donald LeoGrande
  763 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the adjudication of civil contempt but modified the coercive fines, remanding for further determination of the appropriateness and amount of sanctions for non-compliance with certain orders.
• In re Mark Indus.
  751 F.2d 1219· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by voiding the statutory presumption of patent validity and limiting damages based on a clearly erroneous finding of inequitable conduct.
• In re Chicago
  738 F.2d 209· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 8×
  A state or municipality must obtain leave from the bankruptcy reorganization court before initiating condemnation proceedings against a debtor railroad's property, even if the taking does not interfere with operations.
• In re Carter-Mondale Reelection Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n
  642 F.2d 538· D.C. Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had the authority to examine the face of an administrative complaint challenging a candidate's eligibility for public funding before certifying, but was not obligated to conduct a full investigation if the complaint did not present an extreme
• United States v. Ruttenberg
  625 F.2d 173· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that guilty pleas waive non-jurisdictional defects, and the indictments sufficiently alleged kickbacks under the statute, making the denial of the writ of error coram nobis appropriate.
• In re the Application of the United States OF Am. FOR an Order Authorizing the Installation OF a PEN Register OR Touch-Tone Decoder & a Terminating Trap. Appeal of Bell Tel. Co. OF Pa. In the Matter of the Application of the United States OF Am. FOR an Order Authorizing the Installation OF a PEN Register OR a Touch-Tone Decoder & Termination Trap Facilities. Appeal of Bell Tel. Co. OF Pa. In the Matter of the Application of the United States FOR AN Order Authorizing A Tel. Tracer. Appeal of NEW Jersey Bell Tel. Co.
  610 F.2d 1148· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 8×
  District courts have the authority under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 and the All Writs Act to order telephone companies to assist in tracing calls, but due process requires a hearing on the burdensomeness of such orders before they are enforced.
• In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct
  593 F.2d 879· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Procedures for Processing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct are not intended to provide a tactical advantage in litigation or to address delays in a single case absent broader issues.
• Ishmail Muslin ALI (formerly Ishmael X. La Beet) v. Gibson
  572 F.2d 971· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-01 ·cited 8×
  The District Court for the Virgin Islands has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner incarcerated outside its territorial limits, provided the claim is brought under Virgin Islands law and jurisdiction is established over the custodian.
• Am. Pub. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  543 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an injunction is necessary to require a refund undertaking for new natural gas rates, pending final Commission action, to prevent irreparable harm from potentially unlawful charges.
• United States v. Honorable Miles W. Lord
  542 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 8×
  The court denied a writ prohibiting the district judge from discharging jurors but prohibited him from transferring the action to another district court and directed prompt disposition.
• Junuthula N. Reddy v. Dann
  529 F.2d 1347· C.C.P.A.· 1976-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacks the authority to award attorneys' fees in proceedings before it, and that extraordinary writs will not be used to interfere with interlocutory Patent and Trademark Office decisions where an effective appellate remedy exists.
• Vickers Motors, Inc. v. Wellford
  502 F.2d 967· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that mandamus and prohibition are not appropriate remedies to challenge a district court's order referring discovery motions to a magistrate, as such an order does not constitute a clear abuse of judicial power and is reviewable on appeal.
• Application of Deborah Johnson
  484 F.2d 791· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was from an unappealable order, and that the prior denial of a writ of mandamus was res judicata. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the application to expunge the grand jury report.
• Hayes Indus., Inc. v. Caribbean Sales Assocs., Inc.
  387 F.2d 498· 1st Cir.· 1968-01-10 ·cited 8×
  A federal court may not enjoin a state court proceeding in a personal action unless expressly authorized by Congress or necessary to protect its own jurisdiction or effectuate its judgments.
• James v. Rini
  374 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1967-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant pleading guilty under Rule 20 without counsel, despite the district court's statement that counsel was not required, was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Univ. Nat'l Stockholders Protective Comm., Inc. v. Univ. Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  328 F.2d 425· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that extraordinary writs are not a substitute for appeal and will not be used to review interlocutory orders absent a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.
• United States v. Campbell
  278 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1960-05-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's petition to vacate his guilty plea did not state sufficient particularity to necessitate a hearing, and that he voluntarily pleaded guilty with a full understanding of the charges.
• In re Johnson
  814 F.3d 1259· 11th Cir.· 2016-02-26 ·cited 7×
  Anthony Johnson sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, which invalidated ACCA's residual clause for prior convictions. The Eleventh Circuit held that the 30-day deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D) for ruling on such
• The League OF Women Voters OF Fla. v. Data Targeting, Inc.
  140 So. 3d 510· Fla.· 2014-05-27 ·cited 7×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida Supreme Court granted an emergency petition to stay a First District Court of Appeal order that had blocked disclosure of documents allegedly showing partisan involvement in Florida's 2012 congressional redistricting. The Court permitted the documents to be admitted a
• United States v. Reyes
  945 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-23 ·cited 7×
  The writ of audita querela is not available to vacate an otherwise final criminal conviction on purely equitable grounds, particularly when the request is solely for immigration purposes.
• State v. Estech, Inc.
  515 So. 2d 758· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-10-14 ·cited 7×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The court held that the petitioners presented sufficient evidence of possession to be entitled to a jury trial.
• Cruz v. The Honorable Paul J. Abbate
  812 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 7×
  The Presiding Judge of the appellate division cannot unilaterally dismiss a writ of mandamus petition; such matters require consideration by a full panel.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 15
  797 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The district court correctly held it lacked authority under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) to impose an obligation of secrecy upon a grand jury witness. The order of the district court should be affirmed.
• Berrios v. Agosto
  716 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that legislative activities enjoined were protected by common law legislative immunity and no exception applied, thus reversing the district court's order.
• United States v. Feeney
  641 F.2d 821· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it reviewable by writ of mandamus in this context.
• City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
  109 So. 2d 599· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-03-11 ·cited 7×
  The City of Miami Beach appealed a circuit court judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandamus against the city. The appellee hotel corporation moved to require a supersedeas bond as a condition of the city's appeal. The appellate court denied the motion, holding that under Flo
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swift & Co.
  233 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceeding due to the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2283, as the Board failed to meet any of the statutory exceptions.
• Williams v. State
  102 So. 3d 669· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-08-03 ·cited 6×·via All Writs Jurisdiction
  The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition invoking the all writs jurisdiction to challenge a 2002 conviction and sentence, holding that the all writs provision does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction. The court also imposed sanctions barring the pet
• In re Sandahl
  980 F.2d 1118· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 6×
  A writ of mandamus will be granted to vacate a disqualification order if the order is patently erroneous, as the judge's reasoning here was inadequate and based on an abandoned client's rights.
• United States v. City OF NEW York & N.Y. City Dep't of Env't Prot.
  972 F.2d 464· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 6×
  Municipal taxpayers have standing to challenge municipal expenditures without proving resulting savings, and the City's contracts for sludge management did not require competitive bidding under the 'special case' exception.
• Lowery v. McCAUGHTRY
  954 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 6×
  A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies, even if the petitioner speculates about potential state procedural hurdles.
• In re Sharon Steel Corp. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  918 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the district court to rule on ARCO's motion to reconsider, as the district court's inaction constituted an abdication of judicial power and frustrated appellate jurisdiction.
• De Long v. Hennessey
  912 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while federal courts have inherent power to enjoin vexatious litigants, such orders require notice, an adequate record, substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment, and must be narrowly tailored; otherwise, they are an abuse of discretion.
• MOY v. United States
  906 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Bruno
  903 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that wire fraud convictions must be reversed due to the "intangible rights" theory being invalidated by McNally, and the conspiracy conviction is also subject to reversal if that theory infected the jury's decision.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-Housemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  899 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while Ligurotis could be held in contempt for filing a lawsuit that interfered with court-appointed officers, he could not be compelled to force other parties to dismiss their claims with prejudice as a condition of purging contempt. The court also found that
• United States v. Spilotro
  884 F.2d 1003· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from the district court's order reducing the defendant's sentence, but granted the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to restore the original sentence.