CHANNAN SINGH

v.

HAFF, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Powell v. Weger, 97 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1957)
  …f the United States has held that an unusually heavy docket or trial list that might produce delay in the hearing of a particular cause is not in and of itself adequate justification for referring the cause to a master. McCullough v. Cosgrave, 1940, 309 U.S. 634, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992. The position which we here announce is further supported by the recognized weight of authority. 19 Am. Jur., Equity, Sec. 371, p. 255. The essence of the reason for this rule is that when a cause comes to this Court on…
• Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1967)
  …v. United States Dist. Court, 334 U. S. 258 (1948), and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by this Court, La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249 (1957); see McCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U. S. 634 (1940); Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James, 272 U. S. 701, 706, 707 (1927) (dictum). And the party seeking mandamus has “the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.' ” Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holl…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943)
  …of mandamus to correct. Hence there are in this case no special circumstances which would justify the issuance of the writ, such as the persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure prescribed by this Court, found in McCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U. S. 634 (see Los Angeles Brush Co. v. James, 272 U. S. 701, 706-8); or the refusal to perform a plain ministerial duty, involved in Ex parte United States, supra; or the considerations of comity between state and federal courts, thought to be controlling in…

Authorities Cited

• United States Ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1923)
• Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1912)
• Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1912)