28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Final Decisions Of District Courts)

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

• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp.
  621 F.2d 1371· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 104×
  The court held that a foreign state's removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) removes the entire action against all defendants, not just the foreign state, rendering a dismissal of only the foreign state defendant non-final and unappealable.
• In re Gen. Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litig. Appeal of Betty Oswald v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  594 F.2d 1106· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 77×
  The court held that an order approving a subclass settlement in a class action is an appealable collateral order, and that the trial court erred in approving the settlement.
• Donald Frederick Evans & Assocs., Inc. v. Cont'l Homes, Inc.
  785 F.2d 897· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 72×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the copyright owner forfeited statutory protection due to widespread publication of works without copyright notice, despite establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
• Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y OF SAN Diego
  662 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 68×
  The court held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a Title VII case is not immediately appealable as a collateral order because it is effectively reviewable after final judgment and does not involve rights that would be destroyed by delaying review.
• United States v. Benjamin
  812 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 60×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal of a claimed Rule 6(e) violation regarding grand jury secrecy is not permitted under United States v. Mechanik, as the petit jury's verdict would render any such error harmless.
• Spencer v. Pfizer Inc.
  498 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment and severing counterclaims, thus lacking appellate jurisdiction.
• Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd.
  652 F.2d 808· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion suspends the time for appeal and that summary judgment was improperly granted where material facts regarding defendants' knowledge and duty to disclose were disputed.
• In re Dalton v. United States & Scott H. Phillips for Ariz. Fuels Corp.
  733 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's orders withdrawing reference and transferring venue, and that an extraordinary writ of mandamus was not warranted.
• Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.
  620 F.2d 404· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an appeal can be dismissed for failure to comply with appellate rules regarding briefs and appendices, and also for lack of jurisdiction if the order appealed from is not final as to all parties without a Rule 54(b) certification.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago under Tr. Agreement dated January 3 v. Bailey
  750 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Chicago Investment's cross-claim should not have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but its counterclaim was properly dismissed as it was not the real party in interest.
• Cromaglass Corp. v. Ferm
  500 F.2d 601· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an order effectively denying injunctive relief on one count of a multi-count complaint, where other counts seek different injunctive relief on distinct legal theories, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Zosky v. Boyer
  856 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 35×
  Orders compelling arbitration in an ongoing lawsuit are interlocutory and not immediately appealable as final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• United States v. Bendis
  681 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Hawaii indictment was not barred by double jeopardy and that the prosecution was not vindictive, affirming the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss.
• United States v. Forcellati
  610 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government retains a property interest in a mailed check until it is paid, and therefore, the district court erred in reversing the conviction based on the check not being government property.
• Burkhart v. United States
  210 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1954-02-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the judgment was not final and therefore not appealable because the district court failed to make an express determination and direction under Rule 54(b) regarding the adjudication of less than all claims.
• United States v. Caggiano
  660 F.2d 184· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 28×
  An order granting the disqualification of an entire United States Attorney's office is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but an order denying such a motion is not. The court reversed the disqualification order, finding that vicarious disqualification of government at
• Hartland v. Alaska Airlines
  544 F.2d 992· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the orders appealed were not final decisions, it could convert the appeal into a petition for mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to review the district court's actions.
• Weit v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  535 F.2d 1010· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would hold that interlocutory orders denying class certification and regarding notification are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. LEE
  786 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 23×
  The court found that while the Air Force is not constitutionally required to refer personnel for federal prosecution, its policy of exclusively using military justice creates an unfortunate impression of disparate treatment.
• The Richland Tr. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  480 F.2d 1212· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 21×
  The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court failed to enter a separate judgment document as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
• Arnold v. Arnold and Steven T. Arnold
  920 F.2d 1269· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that its jurisdiction to hear the appeal was proper because the district court's order, which dismissed the complaint in deference to arbitration and entered final judgment, constituted a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 9 U.S.C. § 15(a)(3).
• Prop-Jets, Inc. v. The Honorable Stephen S. Chandler
  575 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate to review the joinder order, and the appeal from that order was dismissed as interlocutory.
• Abdul Muhammad Samaad v. City OF Dallas
  922 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 14×
  A motion for costs does not toll the time to appeal, and a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over unnamed parties.
• Island Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  352 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that inter-island flights over the high seas between Hawaiian Islands are subject to federal regulation by the Civil Aeronautics Board, as Hawaii did not establish its channels as 'historic waters'.
• In re W. F. Hurley, Inc. v. W. F. Hurley, Inc.
  612 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as the appeal was from the denial of a motion to reconsider, not the original order. The denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 307 is reviewable by the district court under
• United States v. Sciarra
  851 F.2d 621· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the discovery order compelling testimony was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the petitioners were non-party witnesses to an investigation, not parties to an ongoing case, and the district court's business was complete. The recusal motion appeal was d
• Abbs v. Sullivan
  963 F.2d 918· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a procedural rule is not judicially reviewable unless sanctions have been imposed under it.
• United States v. Taylor
  881 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based on an alleged 'perjury trap' is not permitted because such claims do not fall under the collateral order doctrine's exception for rights that are effectively unreviewable after
• United States v. Raphael Dwight Hundley
  858 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The government cannot appeal a district court's decision to exclude a prior conviction from sentence enhancement, as there is no statutory authority for such an appeal, and a contrived collateral attack cannot create appellate jurisdiction.
• Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co.
  310 F.2d 627· 4th Cir.· 1962-11-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal referencing an interlocutory order is timely if the intent to appeal the final judgment is clear and the appellee is not misled. It also held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit contingent orders for subrogation claims even before the substa
• Taitt v. Chem. Bank
  810 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 6×
  A retaliatory discharge claim arising from opposition to a consent decree does not fall within the decree's dispute resolution mechanism and must be heard by the district court.
• Burkett v. Shell OIL Co.
  487 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it was not compelled to dismiss the appeal and should have addressed the merits.
• United States v. French
  787 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 4×
  A district court's order retransferring a case under Rule 20 is not an immediately appealable collateral order because it is not final and issues can be reviewed after final judgment.
• Brest v. Philadelphia Transp. Co. (Defendant & Third-Party
  273 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1959-12-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if service of post-trial motions is not demonstrated in the record.
• Bennett v. Gen. Caster Serv. OF N. Gordon Co., Inc.
  976 F.2d 995· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 2×
  A magistrate judge lacks the authority to enter a post-judgment order imposing Rule 11 sanctions, as such an order is dispositive and requires de novo review by the district court.
• United States v. Khader Musa Hamide
  914 F.2d 1147· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order determining the legality of electronic surveillance was not a final order, and the issues would be reviewable on appeal from a final deportation order.
• Capri Constr. Corp. v. Linville
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-08
  The court held that a motion to amend under Rule 15(a) is untimely after a final judgment has been entered and appealed, and that motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and relief under Rule 60(b) were also untimely or lacked merit.