Mile Ltd., 673 F.2d 242, 244 (8th Cir.1982). Some courts have also held that a court of appeals has jurisdiction to vacate a completed inter-circuit transfer if the case was transferred to a court in which it could not have originally been brought, although the mandamus order often involves a request that the transferor court request the case back from the transferee court. See, e.g., Town of N. Bonneville, Wash. v. U.S. Dist. Court, W. Dist. of Wash., 732 F.2d 747, 752 (9th Cir.1984); Farrell v. Wyatt, 408 F.2d 662, 664-65 (2d Cir.1969) (distinguishing between treatment of transfers that are abuses of discretion and those that are beyond the transferor court's power). 7 . See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Warrick, 70 F.3d at 740; see also
holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion holding that notice of condemnation and availability of a state court injunction writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari in an eminent domain case satisfied due process holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus holding that a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted