Ex parte Fahey et al. isc
| Decision Date | 30 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | M,No. 133,133 |
| Citation | 332 U.S. 258,91 L.Ed. 2041,67 S.Ct. 1558 |
| Parties | Ex parte FAHEY et al. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners on support of the motion for leave to file.
Messrs. Welburn Mayock, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Charles K. Chapman, of Long Beach, Cal., for respondent Peirson M. Hall, Judge, in opposition thereto.
This petition by John H. Fahey, individually and as Federal Home Loan Bank Commissioner, and A. V. Amman, individually and as Conservator for the Long Beach Federal Savings and Loan Association, invokes the original jurisdiction of this Court. They ask leave to file petition fr a writ o f 'mandamus and/or prohibition and/or injunction' against Judge Peirson M. Hall of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to vacate his order allowing fees to counsel in Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 67 S.Ct. 1552, to prohibit any further allowance therein, and to enjoin any payments heretofore allowed.
While an appeal in the principal case was pending in this Court, application was made by various counsel for the plaintiffs and associated interests therein for allowance of fees aggregating some $125,000. The District Court allowed counsel for plaintiffs $50,000 as a partial payment on account of services, but withheld action on other applications. Certain costs and expenses of the plaintiffs in the amount of $17,295.13 were also ordered reimbursed.
The petition involves serious questions of law and of fact. Whether, because of the pendency of the appeal and the stay order granted therein, the District Court had power to entertain the application, whether before the final outcome of the case could be known an allowance was premature, whether the source of the fund on deposit with the court was so related to the services as to be subject to disbursement for their compensation, and whether one judge can make allowances in a case before a three-judge court, are, with other questions, much contested. We do not decide any question as to the merits.
Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies. We do not doubt power in a proper case to issue such writs. But they have the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigants before him. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. McDonough
...trial, and whatever may be done without the writ may not be done with it." Id. at 383, 74 S.Ct. 145 (citing Ex parte Fahey , 332 U.S. 258, 259–60, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947) ; U.S. Alkali Export Ass'n v. United States , 325 U.S. 196, 202–03, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554 (1945) ; Ro......
-
Pulliam v. Allen, 82-1432
...before him," the Court has stressed that it should be "reserved for really extraordinary causes." Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947). Occasionally, however, there are "really extraordinary causes" and, in such cases, there has been no suggestion tha......
-
Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit of United States
...to the parties in those cases; the parties cannot be relied upon to seek vindication of that injury. Cf. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947); Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363, 372—380, 31 S.Ct. 324, 326 330, 55 L.Ed. 252 It is difficult to see how the ......
-
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 4434.
...217 U.S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L.Ed. 762; Adam v. U. S. ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268; Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041. Thus, the writ of certiorari was utilized by the Supreme Court to confine the District Court within its jurisdiction......
-
Reforming Qualified-Immunity Appeals.
...367, 380 (2004) ("[Mandamus] is a 'drastic and extraordinary' remedy 'reserved for really extraordinary causes.'" (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947)); see also Paul R. Gugliuzza, The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, 45 IND. L. REV. 343, 351-61 (2012) (describing the history a......
-
Behind the Scenes of the Trademark Modernization Act: An Interview with Stephen Lee
...1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirtualAgility , 759 F.3d at 1308. 12. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964) (citing Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). 13. Id. (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953)). 14. NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-C......
-
The Law of District Court Stays for USPTO Proceedings
...1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirtualAgility , 759 F.3d at 1308. 12. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964) (citing Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). 13. Id. (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953)). 14. NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-C......
-
Separation-of-Powers Avoidance.
...(observing that mandamus "is a 'drastic and extraordinary' remedy 'reserved for really extraordinary causes'" (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (112.) Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016). (113.) Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 107 (1967). (114.) In......