Legal Opinion
United States v. Vinyard
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided August 20, 2008No. 07-2304, 07-2674PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Unsure of the proper procedural vehicle to use, the Government has brought this case before us using two alternatives: an interlocutory appeal (No. 07-2304) and a petition for a writ of mandamus (No. 07-2674). We conclude that appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 is problematic, since the district court did not issue any of the orders described by that statute. We conclude, however, that this is one of those rare cases in which a writ of mandamus should issue. We therefore reserve for another day the question whether we might have been able to accept this type of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. DinitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Ricketts v. AdamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- United States v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. Luis Enrique Arango-MontoyaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Jerry L. Vinyard v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- In Re LimitNone, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- United States v. Demettris CruseCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- United States v. Sevilla-OyolaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- Samira Hazama v. Rex W. TillersonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.