Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

776 F.2d 571

Docket No. 82-3598.

In Re Wilkinson Storage Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1983.

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1116 · 18 U.S.C. § 3184 · 18 U.S.C. § 3190 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-02-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), United States v. Saccoccia (1995)

30 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

25019831990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Morton S. Robson, Robson & Miller, New York City, Douglas G. Cole, Strauss, Troy & Ruehlmann Co., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.

William F. Eggeling, Ropes & Gray, Boston, Mass., Joseph Tatchan, Susan Collins, Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, Ohio, for National Bank of Boston.

ORDER

Before LIVELY, BOYCE F. MARTIN and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges.

¶1

The court has for consideration petitions for mandamus and prohibition against Bankruptcy Judge John F. Ray, Jr. of the Northern District of Ohio filed by the petitioners. On October 1, 1982 Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of this court ordered the intervenor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio, First National Bank of Boston, to brief the issues of the personal jurisdiction and alleged due process violations raised by the petitioners in their application for a stay in this court. Thereafter the intervenor First National Bank of Boston filed its brief and the petitioners filed a response thereto.

¶2

Upon consideration of the petition, the brief and the response thereto and other papers filed in connection therewith the court concludes that the issues raised herein, though important, are not of such magnitude as to justify granting the extraordinary relief of mandamus or prohibition. These issues can be reached by appeal, and mandamus or prohibition should never be used as a substitute for appeal.

¶3

The petitions for mandamus and prohibition and the motion for stay of the orders of the Bankruptcy Court are all denied.

/776/f2d/571 · .json · Public domain