United States v. United States District Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Concurring in the judgmentWallace, Circuit Judge
I concur only in the judgment to deny the writ of mandamus. Judge Jones’s reversal of his prior order denying admission to government attorneys renders unnecessary the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus. This is where our analysis should end. See In re Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO, 837 F.2d 503, 507 (D.C.Cir.1988) (denying petition for writ of mandamus and observing that “[w]here there’s no remedy, there’s no need to decide if there was a wrong”). In my view, our statutory writ authority is an improper vehicle for providing hopeful but non-binding assurances that Judge Jones…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. KollerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Holly W. BAUMAN Et Al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, Union Oil Company, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.