28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Final Decisions)

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

• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Wilemon
  58 F.4th 1338· 11th Cir.· 2023-02-06 ·cited 19×
  The appellate court reviews the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant union, which dissolved a temporary injunction against picketing, questioning whether the trial court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption.
• In re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II. Brannon v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., Inc.
  940 F.2d 832· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court sustained the jurisdictional grant under the Price-Anderson Act, finding that federal courts should be available to determine important federal questions that might arise in public liability actions and to implement the federal scheme for nuclear accident litigation.
• John v. Honorable Michael J. Barron
  897 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that appellate jurisdiction for Rule 11 sanctions is lacking if the amount of fees is not determined, that judicial immunity shields a state judge from damages for acts within jurisdiction, and that appeals with perfunctory briefs are dismissed.
• Schmitt v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  845 F.2d 1546· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order because it was based on grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), but it had jurisdiction to review the award of attorney's fees, which it reversed.
• Gilbert v. Johnson
  490 F.2d 827· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiff's motion to enforce a prior judgment was erroneous and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Fischer v. First Nat'l Bank OF Omaha
  466 F.2d 511· 8th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order transferring an action to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is an interlocutory order and is therefore nonappealable.
• Broad. Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enters., Inc.
  811 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that counsel's actions constituted an appearance, waiving any defect in service of process and personal jurisdiction, thus the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Chuck Siers v. Mr. J. Morrash (Hosp. Administrator)
  700 F.2d 113· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 16×
  A magistrate's order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights suit is not a final order of the district court and is therefore not directly appealable to the court of appeals.
• United States v. SAM Goody, Inc.
  675 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court, bound by precedent, affirmed the order granting a new trial, despite the concurring judge's belief that the order was an abuse of discretion and should be appealable.
• Jensenius v. Texaco, Inc.
  639 F.2d 1342· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's stay order is not appealable as a final order, an interlocutory injunction, or an interlocutory decree determining rights and liabilities.
• Major v. Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc.
  561 F.2d 1112· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order clarifying a prior injunction was not a final decision nor an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
• Mortimer J. Davis in Bankruptcy of Julius Portner v. Nat'l Mortg. Corp.
  320 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal was premature because the district court failed to make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b).
• Schall v. Joyce
  885 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 15×
  A district court's stay order, which effectively surrenders jurisdiction to a state court to litigate essential parts of a federal suit, is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate when state proceedings are jud
• Jolley v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
  864 F.2d 402· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 15×
  An order granting a stay pending arbitration is not appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor as an injunction under § 1292(a)(1), nor under the collateral order doctrine.
• ASH v. Cort
  512 F.2d 909· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 15×
  An order denying a motion to perpetuate testimony pending appeal under F.R.Civ.P. 27(b) is a final order, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Denial of such a motion was not an abuse of discretion here.
• Transworld Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Coupon Exch., Inc.
  913 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claim and entering a permanent injunction due to an inadequate factual record regarding the reasonableness of TWA's transfer restrictions on frequent flyer coupons. However, the court affirmed t
• Gonzalez-Vega v. Hon. Rafael Hernandez-Colon
  866 F.2d 519· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer jurisdiction for any party other than the specifically named appellant, even if all parties intended to appeal.
• Powers v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  846 F.2d 1139· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order holding a party in civil contempt for refusing to disclose information in discovery is not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• State OF NEW York v. United States Metals Ref. Co. & Amax
  771 F.2d 796· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the pretrial discovery protective order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 or 1292(a)(1), and that mandamus was inappropriate.
• Artell M. Henry v. City OF Detroit Manpower Dep't
  739 F.2d 1109· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The majority's decision improperly expands the collateral order exception to the finality rule, inviting piecemeal appeals of decisions on appointment of counsel.
• Seguros Banvenez S.A. v. S/S Oliver Drescher
  715 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's order compelling a charterer to post security for the release of an arrested vessel is not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or the collateral order doctrine.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co.
  795 F.2d 538· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a carrier's processing of damage claims under ICC regulations does not create a prima facie case of liability against its insurer, and that certain defenses raised by the insurer were not affirmative defenses and thus not waived.
• Hoots v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  639 F.2d 972· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 13×
  An appellate court has the power and duty to impose reasonable time limitations on a district court to resolve cases, especially those involving constitutional rights, to prevent unconscionable delay.
• In re Motion to Compel Filed by Dudley M. Steele, Jr. v. Dudley M. Steele, Jr.
  799 F.2d 461· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure under FOIA because the parties failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the order as a final decision or injunction.
• The State OF Ill. v. F.E. Moran, Inc.
  740 F.2d 533· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The majority erred in finding as a matter of law that particularized need for grand jury testimony does not exist, usurping the district court's discretion.
• Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co. v. King Res. Co.
  545 F.2d 1265· 10th Cir.· 1976-11-05 ·cited 12×
• Limbach Co. v. Gevyn Constr. Corp.
  544 F.2d 1104· 1st Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was an interlocutory order related to pretrial procedures, not a final decision or an appealable injunction.
• Zell v. Jacoby-Bender, Inc.
  542 F.2d 34· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-01 ·cited 12×
  A district court's order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract action is appealable as an interlocutory order granting an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Brower v. Cnty. OF Inyo
  817 F.2d 540· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a police roadblock used to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the reasonableness of such a seizure, particularly when deadly force is involved, requires factual inquiry into whether adequate warning was given.
• Tobey v. Extel/JWP
  985 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 10×
  Summary judgment for the employer is affirmed because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that sexual harassment caused her resignation, despite procedural errors in granting the summary judgment.
• Hull v. Freeman
  932 F.2d 159· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order provisionally granting habeas corpus was a final, appealable decision, and that the procedural default doctrine did not bar review of the petitioner's claim. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded for clarification
• Edwards v. Cass Cnty.
  919 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court's refusal to allow a late-filed motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity is not an immediately appealable "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even if the refusal is an abuse of discretion.
• Willhauck v. Halpin
  919 F.2d 788· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to enter final judgments on separate documents for dismissed parties, as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 58, and 79, meant that the time for appeal had not yet begun to run, and thus the denial of the motion for
• United States v. Dixon
  913 F.2d 1305· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial was not justified by manifest necessity, and therefore, retrial of the defendants is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. The Underwriters, Inc.
  846 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order staying proceedings pending arbitration, as such an order is not a final decision and does not meet the criteria for the collateral-order doctrine or permissive appeal.
• United States ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Cmty. v. PAN Am. Mgmt. Co.: New England Ent. Co.
  789 F.2d 632· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the section 81 action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the appeal from the administrative action was dismissed as premature.
• ST. Joseph's Hosp. OF Kan. City & Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Heckler
  786 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The Provider Reimbursement Review Board's (PRRB) decision on whether there was just cause for a late filing is a final decision subject to judicial review.
• Townsend v. Lucas
  745 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The appeal is dismissed because the district court failed to enter a separate final judgment and the notice of appeal was untimely.
• United States v. Robert D.H. Richardson
  702 F.2d 1079· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a criminal defendant cannot appeal a trial court's ruling on the sufficiency of evidence or a related double jeopardy claim until after a final judgment is entered, as these issues do not fall within the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.
• Est. of Leonard E. Whitlock v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  547 F.2d 506· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The Tax Court's order vacating its prior order was not a final, appealable decision, and mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with the appellate court's mandate.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Escondido Mut. Water Co.
  459 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Attorney General is not required to provide legal representation or security to the plaintiffs due to a conflict of interest, and the appealability of the order is proper under the collateral order doctrine.
• Waylyn Corp. v. Casalduc
  219 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1955-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the turn-over order in a receivership is not a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory injunction, thus the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Abish v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Milwaukee
  924 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying the surety's motion for quia timet and exoneration relief, as the order was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory injunction.
• Gometz v. Culwell
  850 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to support his claim, thus the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1481· D.C. Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the March order constituted a new or modified injunction, not merely a contempt finding for violating the July injunction, and thus vacated the contempt judgment.
• Composite Tech., Inc. v. Underwriters AT Lloyd's
  762 F.2d 708· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term 'sales' in the insurance policy's exclusion for 'sales to military organizations' is ambiguous, precluding summary judgment based solely on the policy's language.
• C.I.T. Fin. Serv. v. Yeomans
  710 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction because the record does not contain a final judgment evidenced by a judicial act, such as an opinion or order, only a clerk's docket entry.
• Mass. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens v. King
  643 F.2d 899· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 8×
  Statements made by the district court during a hearing, even if forcefully expressed, are not appealable 'orders' if they do not compel parties to change their behavior or prevent them from acting.
• Turtle v. Inst. for Res. Mgmt., Inc.
  475 F.2d 925· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) when less than all claims or parties are resolved.
• Heibert Rojas-Hernandez v. Puerto RICO Elec. Power Auth.
  925 F.2d 492· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 7×
  The district court's order effectively staying federal proceedings pending resolution of a parallel state court action, which risked depriving the plaintiff of a federal forum and caused undue delay, was an unjustified relinquishment of federal jurisdiction and is therefore vacat