28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Final Decisions)

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

• United States v. Rodriguez
  975 F.2d 404· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding coconspirator statements against Rodriguez, finding sufficient evidence to establish his membership in the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Szado
  912 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order declining to rule on the sufficiency of evidence before remanding for a new trial is an appealable collateral order, and that the district court erred by not addressing the sufficiency of evidence claim.
• Jose R.E. Martinez v. Lewis Sullivan, M.D.
  874 F.2d 751· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is a nullity, requiring dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Shell OIL Co.
  820 F.2d 898· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's refusal to stay proceedings was premature and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States
  596 F.2d 630· 4th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order enforcing a grand jury subpoena, and that mandamus relief was not warranted.
• Bowe v. First OF Denver Mortg. Invs.
  562 F.2d 640· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying class certification is interlocutory and not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the plaintiff intends to proceed with the individual claim.
• United States v. Peerless Ins. Co.
  374 F.2d 942· 4th Cir.· 1967-03-06 ·cited 6×
  Default judgments against a surety are not final and appealable under Rule 54(b) until all claims against the principal obligor are resolved, even if the claims against the principal are later dismissed without prejudice.
• Petition of Robert Bave
  314 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1963-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the order denying a motion to discontinue a limitation proceeding and granting leave to prosecute the proceeding was not a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order.
• In re Lieb
  915 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court's amended order, which included a temporary restraining order, denial of withdrawal of reference, severance of claims, and lifting of a stay, was not an appealable injunction or final decision, thus dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdic
• Chvala v. D. C. Transit Sys., Inc.
  293 F.2d 519· D.C. Cir.· 1961-06-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that appeals from a judgment that does not adjudicate all claims or the rights and liabilities of all parties are premature and must be dismissed unless the district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of ju
• Copeland v. Bowen
  861 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, finding the Secretary's conclusions supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.
• Fletcher v. Gagosian
  604 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 4×
  A unilateral dismissal of remaining claims by a plaintiff does not convert a prior interlocutory order into a final, appealable decision.
• United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  562 F.2d 294· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a motion to stay condemnation proceedings is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay was not sought to advance an equitable defense.
• Hogan v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  961 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's certification of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore the appeal was properly dismissed.
• Ver Dell COX as Debtor in Possession of the Estate of Ver Dell Cox v. Piper
  848 F.2d 842· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the orders appealed from were not final decisions or injunctions, and thus not immediately appealable, leading to dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Burney v. City OF Pawtucket
  728 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the entry of a final judgment is premature and dismisses the appeal. It also reversed an order allowing intervention filed after appeal rights expired and affirmed an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing plaintiff.
• Positano Place at Naples IV Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
  11th Cir.· 2023-10-20
  Condominium associations that owned five buildings in Naples, Florida filed suit against their insurer, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, seeking specific performance and breach of contract recovery after Hurricane Irma caused property damage. The district court granted the ass
• Ronda Scott v. Advanced Pharm. Consultants Inc
  84 F.4th 952· 11th Cir.· 2023-10-17
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeals because the district court's Rule 54(b) certification was improper and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) were not met.
• Aitken v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC
  987 F.3d 1021· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-11
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the patients' appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order denying intervention motions as premature was not a final decision.
• Sinclair OIL Corp. v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  982 F.2d 437· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-29
  An order denying a motion to stay federal declaratory judgment proceedings pending resolution of parallel state proceedings is not appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it is not a final determination of the disputed question and is effectively reviewable
• Colvin McCRIGHT, Jr. v. Santoki
  976 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-01
  An order denying a party's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is not a final decision immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it immediately appealable under the Cohen doctrine.
• Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch.
  964 F.2d 980· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-18
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining Interdisciplinary Treatment Teams (IDTs) from considering the availability of community services when making placement recommendations, as such consideration is part of reasonable professional judgment under the Due Proces
• Miller v. R.D. Simmons
  814 F.2d 962· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-26
  An order denying a motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is not immediately appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it fall within the collateral order exception.
• Bradley v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Pinellas Cnty.
  453 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-30
  The court held that the denial of intervention was a final decision and affirmed the district court's denial of both intervention as a matter of right and permissive intervention.