All Writs Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1651)

55 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Bauman v. United States Dist. Court
  557 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 148×
  Mandamus is inappropriate because petitioners have an alternative remedy via interlocutory appeal from the district court's order.
• CBS Inc. v. The Honorable Don J. Young
  522 F.2d 234· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-02 ·cited 74×
  A district court's order broadly prohibiting parties, their relatives, friends, and associates from discussing a case with the news media or public constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment freedoms.
• Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  441 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-26 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove judicial disqualification or fraud, and that the district court did not err in denying the claims, awarding costs, or issuing an injunction against further litigation of the same issues.
• United States v. United States Dist. Court FOR the E. Dist. OF Mich.
  444 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the disclosure of electronic surveillance logs without first conducting an in camera review to determine their relevance and necessity, particularly in national security cases.
• Application of the President & Directors OF Georgetown Coll., Inc.
  331 F.2d 1000· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-03 ·cited 70×
  A single circuit judge has the authority to issue emergency writs to preserve the status quo in cases where a patient's life is in imminent danger and a judicial decision is needed.
• Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel
  367 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 62×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Rockbridge v. Lincoln
  449 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Commissioner of Indian Affairs' failure to regulate traders on the Navajo Reservation, and that sovereign immunity does not bar the action.
• Morrow v. Dist. OF Columbia
  417 F.2d 728· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-18 ·cited 52×
  The majority opinion established precedent for issuing orders regarding the dissemination of arrest records when a case is dismissed in favor of the defendant, asserting ancillary jurisdiction.
• Green v. Honorable John W. Murphy
  259 F.2d 591· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-25 ·cited 52×
  The concurring judges believe the petition should be decided on its merits now, finding the affidavit of prejudice insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
• In re Ellsberg
  446 F.2d 954· 1st Cir.· 1971-08-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the All Writs Statute does not grant jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case, and that the defendant is not entitled to disclosure of alleged wiretapping or a hearing on its legality in a removal proceeding.
• Arthur Young & Co. v. United States Dist. Court
  549 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate clear and indisputable error in the district court's class certification order, which separated certain issues for class-wide adjudication and reserved others for individual determination.
• In re Bendectin Prods. Liab. Litig.
  749 F.2d 300· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should be issued to vacate the district court's order certifying a class action for settlement purposes because the district court's determination of a limited fund under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) was clearly erroneous as a matter of law due to a lac
• Thomas v. United States
  271 F.2d 500· D.C. Cir.· 1959-10-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court did not err in denying a motion to be present at a hearing for a motion attacking a sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel when the appellant knowingly employed counsel for dual representation. It also held that motions attacking sente
• United States v. Marcello
  876 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-23 ·cited 28×
  Convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) must be vacated if the underlying predicate offenses, such as mail or wire fraud, were based on the "intangible rights doctrine" rejected by the Supreme Court in McNally v. United States, and if the i
• Solomon v. Cont'l Am. Life Ins. Co.
  472 F.2d 1043· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be disturbed by writ of mandamus unless the court exceeded its authority or acted outside its jurisdiction, and the conditions imposed on costs were within the court's discretion.
• Roach v. Churchman
  457 F.2d 1101· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion for a consent judgment was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor was it an injunction or otherwise reviewable by mandamus or interlocutory appeal.
• Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. Dasa Corp.
  605 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining plaintiffs from further harassing litigation based on previously adjudicated claims.
• Smoot v. Honorable Noel P. FOX
  353 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1965-12-13 ·cited 24×
  A district court cannot award attorney's fees and expenses as costs in an action at law, even if the action is dismissed with prejudice, as this would violate statutory limitations and the constitutional right to a jury trial.
• United States v. Fernandez-Toledo
  737 F.2d 912· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the government has no right to appeal a district court order setting bail.
• In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litigation. Leon Namoff v. Merrill Lynch
  829 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in certifying the class action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) because the claims sought compensatory damages and did not present a limited fund situation sufficient for such certification.
• Haggard v. State OF Tenn. & Honorable Joseph D. Duncan
  421 F.2d 1384· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts or their officers, and habeas corpus relief requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Honorable R. Dorsey Watkins
  373 F.2d 361· 4th Cir.· 1967-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to transfer the case to Ohio due to a significant change in conditions, specifically the impending simultaneous trial of related cases, which necessitated consolidation for judicial economy.
• United States v. Travers
  514 F.2d 1171· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 20×
  A conviction obtained in violation of federal law, as clarified by a subsequent Supreme Court decision, can be challenged via a writ of error coram nobis even after the sentence has been served, provided the defendant exhausted direct appellate remedies.
• Gaito v. Honorable Henry Ellenbogen
  425 F.2d 845· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the civil rights complaint, affirming the dismissal.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• MOY v. United States
  906 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 6×
• Wash. Pub. Utils. Grp. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the W. Dist. OF Wash.
  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.
• Cole v. United States
  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.
• Polur v. Hyman Raffe
  912 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims based on a contempt order and sanctions judgment are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata, and that claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint but modified the injunction against furthe
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  725 F.2d 1392· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 4×
  Guardians ad litem can be awarded fees regardless of the litigation's outcome, as they are court officers tasked with protecting minors.
• Caleshu v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin
  549 F.2d 93· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that venue for individual tax refund suits against the United States is proper only in the plaintiff's district of residence, and a transfer for convenience is not permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(2).
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia v. Cap. Transit Co.
  214 F.2d 242· D.C. Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining the company from paying a dividend and redeeming bonds, pending further investigation and report.