28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)

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

• Morgenstern Chem. Co., Inc. v. Schering Corp.
  181 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1950-04-05 ·cited 70×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment due to the presence of genuine issues of fact is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1), even if the motion sought an injunction.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Forman
  204 F.2d 230· 3d Cir.· 1953-04-08 ·cited 58×
  The court held that an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of primary jurisdiction is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1), nor is extraordinary relief by mandamus or prohibition appropriate.
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  213 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-12 ·cited 40×
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction is not an appealable order, but a permanent injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. The permanent injunction was vacated due to lack of findings of fact.
• Zwack v. Kraus Bros. & Co., Inc.
  237 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1956-10-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the injunctive provisions of the decree but not over the monetary awards or the reference to a master, and affirmed certain conclusions of law while remanding others.
• Gerringer v. United States
  213 F.2d 346· D.C. Cir.· 1954-03-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a procedural irregularity in filing a motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis in the wrong court, but within the statutory time limit, is not a jurisdictional defect and can be disregarded in the interest of substantial justice when the appellant is
• Stiller v. Squeez-A-Purse Corp.
  251 F.2d 561· 6th Cir.· 1958-01-23 ·cited 28×
  The appeal is dismissed because it was not timely filed. The court did not reach the merits of whether the district court properly restrained the prosecution of the North Carolina suit.
• Loew's Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Park-In Theatres, Inc.
  174 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1949-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the patent claims were invalid for lack of invention, reversing the lower court's judgment of validity and infringement. The court also declined to definitively rule on its appellate jurisdiction over the non-federal royalty claim.
• Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co.
  239 F.2d 774· 6th Cir.· 1957-01-11 ·cited 22×
  Venue is proper in the district where a corporation is licensed to do business, and the first-filed action is determined by the filing date, not service date.
• Div. 689 v. Cap. Transit Co.
  227 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 20×
• NEW York Pathological & X-Ray Labs., Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  523 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 15×
  The dissent argues that the INS's designation of approved facilities for alien medical examinations did not require notice and a hearing under the APA or the Fifth Amendment. The appellant had no protected property interest in continued referrals.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Vill. of Cedar-Hurst
  201 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there is a substantial question regarding the ordinance's validity against federal supremacy, and thus the injunction against its enforcement should be continued pending trial.
• Comfort Equip. Co. v. Steckler
  212 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-20 ·cited 10×
  Mandamus is an inappropriate remedy to review a trial court's venue determination prior to a final adjudication on the merits.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  238 F.2d 654· 1st Cir.· 1956-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the orders appealed from were not final or appealable interlocutory orders, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Citizens Nat. Bank in Abilene
  212 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Texas federal district court erred in enjoining the New Mexico bank from prosecuting its will construction suit, as the New Mexico court's jurisdiction was not in conflict and its judgment would be persuasive. However, the Texas court did acquire jurisdict
• Russell Box Co. v. Grant Paper Box Co.
  179 F.2d 785· 1st Cir.· 1950-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to abate a patent infringement action based on the defendant corporation's dissolution is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1) or (4) because it does not affect the injunction and is not a final judgment on the merits.