28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Final Decisions)

130 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• The City OF NEW York v. Int'l Pipe & Ceramics Corp.
  410 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 104×
  The court held that an order determining an action is not maintainable as a class action is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a final order.
• Donovan Edward Ruby v. Secretary OF the United States Navy
  365 F.2d 385· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-02 ·cited 103×
• United States v. Griffin
  617 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 96×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on the grounds of vindictive prosecution is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a collateral order.
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in not approving the settlement agreement because ERISA permits equitable contribution among co-trustees, and the comparative fault rule discussed by the majority is inapplicable and unnecessary dicta.
• Save THE BAY, Inc. v. The United States Army
  639 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 84×
  The appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the challenged orders were either not final, not appealable interlocutory orders, or the issues were moot.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Lawrence and Elizabeth Norman v. McKEE
  431 F.2d 769· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-28 ·cited 72×
  An order disapproving a proposed settlement in a class action or stockholder's derivative suit is an appealable final decision, and the district judge did not abuse discretion in disapproving this settlement.
• Wright v. S. Ark. Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc.
  800 F.2d 199· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 70×
  The denial of a claim of qualified immunity, even when it turns on the factual question of improper motivation, is an appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine.
• In re Grand Jury Empanelled February 14
  597 F.2d 851· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 62×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not shield business records from production when a subpoena duces tecum is served on an employee who prepared and maintained those records, even if the employer owns the business.
• Lojuk v. Bruce Johnson, M.D.
  770 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 60×
  The denial of absolute immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and the denial of qualified immunity is appealable under Mitchell v. Forsyth. The court affirmed the denial of absolute immunity for the common-law battery claim, finding that 38 U.S.C.
• Horizons Titanium Corp. v. Norton Co.
  290 F.2d 421· 1st Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum, when issued by a court ancillary to a proceeding in another district and when the order is the only proceeding between the parties, is a final decision and thus appealable. The court further held that the grounds prese
• Danford v. Schwabacher
  488 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that an order denying a stay of an action pending arbitration is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless it falls under the Enelow-Ettelson rule, which requires the underlying action to be characterized as legal and the stay to be sought for an equitable defen
• Herbst v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  495 F.2d 1308· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-03 ·cited 56×
• Centracchio v. Garrity
  198 F.2d 382· 1st Cir.· 1952-07-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a pre-indictment petition to suppress evidence, based on alleged promises of immunity under a voluntary disclosure policy, should be dismissed for want of equity, as the evidence was voluntarily provided and no constitutional violation was demonstrated at that
• United States v. Hetrick
  627 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-16 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the government may appeal a district court's order reducing a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 does not empower the district court to reduce a sentence beyond the 120-day jurisdictional limit.
• Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, the refusal to certify the class action is not reviewable on appeal due to the policy against piecemeal appeals, but the case is remanded for technical correction of the dismissal order.
• Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc. v. Dir., Bureau OF Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
  812 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the minute order granting summary judgment was not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Hastings v. Maine-Endwell Cent. Sch. Dist.
  676 F.2d 893· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the interim attorney's fees order, as it was neither a final order, an injunction, nor a certified interlocutory order.
• Schaper v. City OF Huntsville
  813 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that allegations of bias and conspiracy in pre-termination hearings, even if true, do not state a procedural or substantive due process claim when a post-termination administrative remedy is available.
• Queenie Mitchell v. Carlson
  896 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while it lacks jurisdiction to review remand orders, it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order resubstituting the employee defendant, as it is separable from the remand and appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The resubstitution was i
• United States v. Beckerman
  516 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment based on double jeopardy is an appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine. The court further held that the mistrial was properly declared due to jury deadlock, and retrial did not violate th
• Bastian v. Petren Res. Corp.
  892 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that plaintiffs must allege and prove "loss causation" in securities fraud cases under Rule 10b-5 and RICO, meaning the fraud must have caused the investment loss, not just the decision to invest.
• Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  723 F.2d 1068· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals as of right, and denied petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition, because the district court's denial of a stay was a discretionary order not subject to immediate appellate review.
• E. Maico Distribs., Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik
  658 F.2d 944· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that discovery orders and sanctions imposed under Rule 37(a)(4) are generally not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even when imposed on an attorney, as they are not final decisions and do not meet the collateral order exception.
• W. Geophysical Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Bolt Assocs., Inc.
  440 F.2d 765· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appeal from the interlocutory order striking a jury demand and portions of counterclaims was not properly before the court and dismissed the appeal.
• Flowers v. Turbine Support Division
  507 F.2d 1242· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was erroneous and that the subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution was an abuse of discretion.
• Peterman v. Indian Motorcycle Co.
  216 F.2d 289· 1st Cir.· 1954-10-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a notice of appeal from a final judgment brings up for review errors in the judgment, and a separate appeal from an order denying a post-judgment motion for a new trial is only necessary if the motion presents new matters not before the court at judgment.
• Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Acct. Serv. Corp.
  514 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that interlocutory orders granting writs of attachment, finding civil contempt, and imposing fines for civil contempt are generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1), absent specific circumstances not present here.
• Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc.
  735 F.2d 763· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a motion to transfer a federal action to another federal court is distinguishable from a motion to dismiss in favor of a foreign court.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  931 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The Affiliates are bound by the Consent Decree's election provisions because the IBT adequately represented the collective membership's interests, and the provisions concern international governance rather than local union matters.
• United States v. Morton Berkowitz
  328 F.2d 358· 3d Cir.· 1964-02-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a district court has the power to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even if it has not acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that orders denying such transfers can be appealable if they effectively terminate the litigation.
• United States v. Laurence John Layton
  645 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-05 ·cited 33×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable as a collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf
  698 F.2d 157· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would remand for an order determining that the defendant's new product (D3) does not violate the injunctive provisions of the consent decree.
• State OF NEW Mexico v. Aamodt
  537 F.2d 1102· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Pueblos' water rights are not controlled by New Mexico state water law, and the district court erred in denying the Pueblos the right to independent representation by private counsel.
• United States v. Richardson
  204 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1953-05-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the order abating prosecution was not a final decision nor an appealable injunction, and that the government's appeal and mandamus petition were therefore dismissed. The court also found that any error in the district court's orders was invited by the governme
• United States v. Hansen
  795 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 28×
  A notice of appeal filed before the entry of a final judgment, and before the disposition of pending counterclaims, is ineffective and does not confer appellate jurisdiction.
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stone
  743 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 27×
  A district court's stay order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if it effectively places the appellant out of court due to indefinite delay, even if the state action for which the stay was granted will not resolve the federal claims.
• United States v. Sobotka
  623 F.2d 764· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the disclosure of grand jury testimony without a sufficient showing of particularized need by the requesting party.
• FOX v. City OF W. Palm Beach
  383 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-26 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court's order denying mandatory injunctive relief was appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the denial of leave to amend the complaint was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Steering Comm. v. Mead Corp.
  611 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that orders concerning the content of notice to absent class members in multidistrict civil antitrust litigation are not immediately appealable under the Cohen doctrine.
• Application of the United States for Relief
  427 F.2d 639· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked statutory authority to compel a communications carrier to assist in the interception of wire communications, even if the interception was judicially approved.
• Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse NO. 1 Bar-B-Que Rest.
  760 F.2d 312· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 25×
  A defendant's venue objection, denied by the district court, is properly reviewable by cross-appeal when the plaintiff appeals an interlocutory order, and venue is improper where the claim did not arise.
• Liberation News Serv. v. Eastland
  426 F.2d 1379· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) does not apply to members of Congress or their employees, thus the district court correctly dismissed the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.
• OTT v. Speedwriting Publ'g Co. & I.T.T. Educ. Servs. Inc.
  518 F.2d 1143· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 24×
  An order denying class action certification is appealable under the 'death knell' doctrine if it effectively ends the litigation for all practical purposes, but requires a factual record to support this claim unless the claim amount is obviously too small.
• Theriault v. United States
  503 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order compelling disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, which grants the full relief sought, is a final appealable decision, and that such orders must be predicated on a de novo review of the agency's claimed exemptions.
• Vincent v. Local 294
  424 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the civil contempt order was appealable, the appeal was moot because the underlying injunction had expired upon the Board's final adjudication of the unfair labor practice charge.
• United States v. Frank B. Killian Co.
  269 F.2d 491· 6th Cir.· 1959-07-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dismissal order was not in error, though it noted the standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim.
• Beard v. Carrollton R.R. & CSX Transp., Inc.
  893 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, affirming its prior decision regarding the dismissal of claims.
• Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Dist. 65, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  799 F.2d 57· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that procedural questions regarding compliance with a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure are for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide when the subject matter is arbitrable. The court also held that an award of attorneys' fees is not a final,
• Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. LeMAY
  448 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the dismissal of third-party complaints was not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.