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
-
884 F.2d 745·
3d Cir.·
1989-09-08
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court's injunction prohibiting the appellant from filing any further documents was overbroad and modified it to require leave of court for actions related to specific resolved issues, with certification of new claims.
-
837 F.2d 184·
5th Cir.·
1988-02-01
·cited 6×
The court held that it lacked authority to enjoin state court proceedings because the state action did not threaten the federal court's jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.
-
843 F.2d 319·
9th Cir.·
1987-12-02
·cited 6×
The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus, as the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in changing venue due to prejudicial publicity and juror financial interest, nor did it commit clear legal error.
-
834 F.2d 283·
2d Cir.·
1987-12-01
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court misinterpreted Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 and the Jencks Act by ordering the government to produce oral statements made by defendants and coconspirators to non-government agents, which were memorialized later.
-
829 F.2d 275·
1st Cir.·
1987-09-25
·cited 6×
The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) delay in issuing a final order, while concerning, did not rise to the level of egregious delay warranting a writ of mandamus, and thus the petition was denied without prejudice.
-
814 F.2d 168·
5th Cir.·
1987-03-30
·cited 6×
The dissenting judge holds that the majority erred in granting a writ of mandamus because the plaintiffs' immigration status is relevant to material issues in the case and the district court acted within its authority.
-
807 F.2d 982·
Fed. Cir.·
1986-12-18
·cited 6×
This court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was based on statutes granting equitable relief (mandamus), not the Tucker Act, which applies to claims for money damages.
-
801 F.2d 1233·
10th Cir.·
1986-09-24
·cited 6×
A blanket post-trial order prohibiting all press interviews with former jurors is an impermissible prior restraint on First Amendment rights and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
-
777 F.2d 760·
D.C. Cir.·
1985-11-26
·cited 6×
The court held that requests for injunctive relief, including a refund obligation and a stay pending review, were premature or unsubstantiated, and therefore denied or dismissed.
-
775 F.2d 545·
3d Cir.·
1985-10-28
·cited 6×
The court held that mandamus is inappropriate because the district court did not commit clear legal error by following the appellate court's mandate, even after petitioners withdrew their objections to prior testimony.
-
769 F.2d 733·
Fed. Cir.·
1985-07-10
·cited 6×
The court held that a writ of mandamus to dismiss for improper venue was not warranted because the petitioner's right to relief was not clear, as the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether a fixed physical location is required for a 'regular and established place of
-
763 F.2d 407·
Fed. Cir.·
1985-05-29
·cited 6×
The court held that a writ of mandamus was not warranted because the district court's remand order did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion and did not deprive the petitioner of an Article III adjudication.
-
752 F.2d 1513·
11th Cir.·
1984-10-16
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in preliminarily enjoining the appellant from challenging in state court the appellee's levy upon the appellant's automobile.
-
737 F.2d 1283·
3d Cir.·
1984-06-27
·cited 6×
-
733 F.2d 10·
2d Cir.·
1984-04-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus must be denied because the district court's order was a rational explication of law within its power and not an abuse of discretion.
-
690 F.2d 403·
4th Cir.·
1982-09-29
·cited 6×
The court held that a state law claim for tortious interference with contract against an employer's president for actions taken to challenge union certification is preempted by federal labor law, and thus the action must be dismissed.
-
671 F.2d 1080·
8th Cir.·
1982-02-17
·cited 6×
The court held that while it generally cannot review ICC decisions not to suspend a tariff, it has jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to review a surcharge that appears designed to interfere with the court's prior mandate regarding abandonment proceedings. The court remanded th
-
655 F.2d 1112·
Temp. Emer. Ct. App.·
1981-06-30
·cited 6×
The court exercised its supervisory powers to consolidate litigation concerning oil pricing regulations in the District of Columbia action, staying proceedings in the Texas action.
-
657 F.2d 107·
7th Cir.·
1981-03-11
·cited 6×
The court held that the suit was properly removed to federal court and subsequently dismissed due to sovereign immunity, and that the injunctive relief granted was proper.
-
634 F.2d 1347·
C.C.P.A.·
1980-12-04
·cited 6×
The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate because the petitioner has not demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion or irreparable injury, and the admissibility of testimony is appealable after a final decision.
-
605 F.2d 1073·
8th Cir.·
1979-09-20
·cited 6×
The court held that while mandamus can review a TRO for jurisdictional defects, it would not review this TRO as it was allowed to expire and the district court could reconsider the injunction.
-
585 F.2d 860·
8th Cir.·
1978-09-13
·cited 6×
The court held that mandamus is not available to review the district court's discretionary orders regarding class certification or EEOC intervention, as these are not final decisions and do not constitute an abuse of judicial power.
-
585 F.2d 1130·
D.C. Cir.·
1978-07-12
·cited 6×
-
569 F.2d 156·
D.C. Cir.·
1978-01-18
·cited 6×
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Tax Court because it does not have appellate jurisdiction over the underlying case.
-
567 F.2d 352·
9th Cir.·
1977-12-23
·cited 6×
The court held that mandamus is not appropriate to prohibit the filing of personnel records when alternatives like in camera review exist to protect confidentiality.
-
544 F.2d 1196·
3d Cir.·
1976-11-05
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery of the named plaintiff's specific claims regarding class members, but that the class certification itself was not an abuse of discretion.
-
530 F.2d 815·
8th Cir.·
1976-03-02
·cited 6×
The Court Reporter Act does not mandate that every word of a pre-trial conference be recorded if any party requests it.
-
530 F.2d 937·
C.C.P.A.·
1975-12-03
·cited 6×
The court granted appellants' motions to expedite the appeal and to enjoin further proceedings, ordering a stay of the Commission's hearing pending disposition of the appeal.
-
-
427 F.2d 1020·
10th Cir.·
1970-06-08
·cited 6×
The dissenting judge believes the district court abused its discretion by issuing a protective order that improperly interfered with the FAA's administrative disciplinary actions against its employees, violating the principle of separation of powers.
-
411 F.2d 586·
4th Cir.·
1969-05-27
·cited 6×
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a state court to provide a trial transcript.
-
407 F.2d 173·
2d Cir.·
1969-01-14
·cited 6×
The court held that interlocutory review of the primary jurisdiction issue should not be entertained at this stage, as it would not materially advance the litigation's termination.
-
385 F.2d 936·
2d Cir.·
1967-11-22
·cited 6×
A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the transfer of tort actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the lower court has exercised its discretion, as mandamus is reserved for truly extraordinary causes and not for correcting mere errors.
-
277 F.2d 433·
9th Cir.·
1960-03-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to bring a defendant from another district for trial, as it was necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction.
-
253 F.2d 51·
7th Cir.·
1958-03-05
·cited 6×
The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in transferring the declaratory judgment action to Oklahoma.
-
241 F.2d 372·
2d Cir.·
1956-12-14
·cited 6×
The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to the Federal Trade Commission when the Clayton Act provides specific enforcement mechanisms and limits appellate review to post-administrative proceeding orders.
-
This case involves an appeal from trial court orders requiring nonparties to produce documents in a redistricting challenge. The First District panel initially reversed the orders on First Amendment privilege grounds, but the full court vacated that decision and certified the cas
-
534 F. Supp. 2d 1290·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-01-08
·cited 5×
The court held that Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was entitled to summary judgment, a judicial declaration of its right to settle Aventura's claim, monetary judgment for losses, and specific performance requiring collateral posting.
-
964 F.2d 180·
2d Cir.·
1992-05-19
·cited 5×
-
915 F.2d 180·
5th Cir.·
1990-10-25
·cited 5×
The court held that the district court's amended order, which included a temporary restraining order, denial of withdrawal of reference, severance of claims, and lifting of a stay, was not an appealable injunction or final decision, thus dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdic
-
873 F.2d 115·
6th Cir.·
1989-04-21
·cited 5×
The court held that expenses for transporting state prisoners to federal court in response to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum are not taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and that a state entity's motion to intervene to recover such costs was untimely.
-
481 F.2d 41·
3d Cir.·
1973-04-23
·cited 5×
The Judicial Council's resolution, adopted without proper procedure and based on incomplete information, was improperly applied to remove counsel, and the matter should be remanded for a hearing.
-
The appellate court reversed a trial court's order denying resentencing, holding that the trial court lacked the authority to deviate from the appellate court's mandate. The court receded from prior precedent that allowed such deviations.
-
The Florida Supreme Court imposed sanctions on inmate Carlos Woodson, restricting his ability to file pro se petitions regarding his criminal case. Woodson had filed fourteen extraordinary writ petitions since 1999, with six filed in the preceding twelve months, all determined to
-
810 F.3d 1247·
11th Cir.·
2016-01-20
·cited 4×
Anthony Johnson sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, but the Eleventh Circuit held his application in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Welch v. United States on whether Johnson announced a new retroac
-
The petitioner is barred from making future pro se filings in this court to challenge his judgments and sentences due to abuse of the legal process.
-
This case involves consolidated petitions seeking to vacate judicial orders that prohibited insurance company staff attorneys from using their firm names and required disclosure of their insurance company affiliation in pleadings. The Florida Supreme Court granted the petitions,
-
963 F.2d 585·
3d Cir.·
1992-05-08
·cited 4×
The court granted the writ of prohibition, finding the district court order suspending an arrest warrant was not immediately appealable and constituted a usurpation of power.
-
959 F.2d 808·
9th Cir.·
1992-03-25
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's suit, and therefore, could not award attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA, as the exclusive jurisdiction for reviewing the FAA's actions lay with the court of appeals.
-
968 F.2d 1472·
2d Cir.·
1991-11-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the Election Officer's order requiring Commercial Carriers to allow campaign stickers on its vehicles was not supported by the All Writs Act and federal labor law, and thus reversed the district court's affirmation of that order and vacated sanctions.