28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)

53 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 511 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Celina Mestre
  701 F.2d 1365· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 288×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Pitney Bowes' appeal regarding the Rotary Collator Agreement and post-expiration rights because those issues were not finally decided by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the Vertical
• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the Birmingham Firefighters Association members' motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed their appeal, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to white male firefighters due to a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Bauman v. United States Dist. Court
  557 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 148×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  Mandamus is inappropriate because petitioners have an alternative remedy via interlocutory appeal from the district court's order.
• Int'l Prods. Corp. v. Koons
  325 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 145×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an order restricting the use of pre-litigation documents and information, even if supported by a government suggestion of interest, violates First Amendment rights and is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Cobb v. Lewis
  488 F.2d 41· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 133×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that antitrust claims are generally not arbitrable, and the plaintiffs' actions did not constitute a waiver or post-dispute agreement to arbitrate these claims.
• Procup v. Strickland
  792 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 113×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
• Weight Watchers OF Philadelphia, Inc. v. Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc.
  455 F.2d 770· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 112×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the order allowing defendant to communicate with potential class members regarding settlement negotiations was not immediately appealable as a final decision or an interlocutory injunction.
• Kohn v. Am. Metal Climax, Inc.
  458 F.2d 255· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-31 ·cited 110×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 were intended to prohibit fraudulent or culpable conduct, not mere negligence or liability without fault.
• Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz
  670 F.2d 440· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 104×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) should be construed narrowly, limiting appellate jurisdiction to review only independently appealable orders, not ancillary ones.
• The City OF NEW York v. Int'l Pipe & Ceramics Corp.
  410 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 104×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  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.
• Cullen v. Margiotta
  811 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the tolling principle in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah should not apply to toll the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' section 1983 and RICO claims because the state court action did not provide sufficient notice of the federal claims.
• Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.
  508 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-24 ·cited 100×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court's local rule was overbroad and should be set aside, particularly as applied to civil rights actions, but did not foreclose the possibility of a narrower rule.
• Jaffee v. United States
  592 F.2d 712· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 98×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the claim for medical care is barred by sovereign immunity as it constitutes a claim for money damages, while the claim for warning is equitable and not barred by sovereign immunity.
• Martinez v. Mathews
  544 F.2d 1233· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 95×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that if a health provider receives funding as a "migrant health center," its governing board must be composed of a majority of individuals being served by the center, who, as a group, represent those individuals, and that the likelihood of success on the issue of f
• Jackson Brewing Co. v. Clarke
  303 F.2d 844· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-14 ·cited 93×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  A district court's order staying proceedings pending the outcome of a state court action is not appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying action is legal in nature and the stay is sought to permit the prior determination of an equitable defens
• Payne v. Travenol Labs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 798· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 91×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding black males from the plaintiff class without notice and in denying them relief after finding they were victims of discrimination.
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  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.
• Univ. Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Unimarc Ltd.
  699 F.2d 846· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 89×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  An order compelling arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 even if the district court retains jurisdiction for supervision and enforcement, and such an order should not be stayed due to frivolous or insubstantial antitrust allegations.
• Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.
  708 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 87×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the interlocutory order and that the district court properly interpreted the arbitration clause to cover claims arising under the contract, affirming the stay pending arbitration of those specific issues.
• NEW England Power Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.
  456 F.2d 183· 1st Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 85×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that neither the district court's denial of a stay of arbitration nor its granting of a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration were immediately appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
• Save THE BAY, Inc. v. The United States Army
  639 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 84×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  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.
• Carter v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  365 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-17 ·cited 84×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court properly invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to refer the question of tariff validity to the FCC, and that the denial of a preliminary injunction was appealable.
• Elmo v. Myers
  544 F.2d 837· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court's order approving a consent decree with injunctive relief was appealable, and that international unions could be held liable for discriminatory practices perpetuated by their locals' collective bargaining agreements.
• Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke
  475 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 81×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay order as part of an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable to a suit brought under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1017(b)(2).
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  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.
• Standard Chlorine OF Del., Inc. v. Jackson D. Leonard
  384 F.2d 304· 2d Cir.· 1967-10-19 ·cited 78×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  An order staying a suit pending arbitration is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a final decision, nor is it appealable under § 1292(a)(1) as an interlocutory injunction unless the underlying action was at law and the stay was sought to determine an equitable defense.
• Lyons v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gen. Elec. Co.
  222 F.2d 184· 2d Cir.· 1955-03-29 ·cited 78×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  A federal district court's stay of proceedings pending a state court determination is not appealable as a final order, but a writ of mandamus may be appropriate if the state court's decision cannot affect the federal action.
• Hines v. D'Artois
  531 F.2d 726· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 77×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  A district court order staying a § 1981 employment discrimination suit pending exhaustion of Title VII administrative remedies is an appealable final order if it effectively puts the plaintiff out of court for an indefinite and protracted period.
• Taylor v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF the City OF NEW Rochelle
  288 F.2d 600· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-13 ·cited 75×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an order directing a school board to present a desegregation plan is an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Miller v. United States
  403 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 74×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an order enjoining inquiry of jurors is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but can be reviewed via mandamus or prohibition, and affirmed the district court's order controlling such inquiries.
• Fleischer v. Phillips
  264 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1959-02-20 ·cited 73×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  Orders denying motions to disqualify attorneys are not immediately appealable as final decisions or under exceptions for collateral orders or injunctions.
• Parks v. Pavkovic
  753 F.2d 1397· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 72×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the state's distinction between developmental disability and educational need for institutionalization is invalid under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, entitling children to full reimbursement for living expenses. The court also found appellate
• In re UNR Indus., Inc.
  725 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-17 ·cited 72×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district judge's order refusing to appoint a representative for potential future asbestos claimants was not a final, appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie
  389 F.2d 692· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-05 ·cited 68×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that Cunard did not waive its right to arbitration by participating in pre-trial proceedings, as no prejudice resulted to the appellees from the delay in seeking a stay.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Carriba AIR, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1318· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 65×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the appellants for violations of securities laws, and that venue was proper in the Northern District of Georgia.
• Gavlik Constr. Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co.
  526 F.2d 777· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 64×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the parties' contracts provided for consolidated arbitration, and that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by filing a third-party complaint or seeking consolidation.
• Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.
  739 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-07 ·cited 63×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that Phoenix's motion for reconsideration tolled the time for appeal, allowing review of the preliminary injunction, which was affirmed. The appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Tokarcik v. Forest Hills Sch. Dist.
  665 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 62×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment and dismiss the complaint, arguing that the action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) is an appeal from an administrative decision and thus barred by the analogous state statute of limitations.
• Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel
  367 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 62×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 60×
  The dissenting judge would dismiss the appeal of the contempt order for lack of appellate jurisdiction, as it is not immediately appealable before a final judgment.
• Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel
  640 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 60×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction but modified it to expire within 90 days, finding that while the district court likely did not err in granting the injunction, the record deficiencies and potential overbreadth warranted modification.
• Build OF Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita
  441 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 60×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the dismissal of the Mayor and Police Commissioner was an interlocutory order refusing an injunction, thus reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. NEW York
  276 F.2d 525· D.C. Cir.· 1959-11-02 ·cited 60×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the dismissal of the sixth count of the stockholders' complaint, which sought to enjoin the performance of a contract, was not a final judgment and therefore not immediately appealable as such, nor was it an appealable interlocutory order refusing an injunctio
• Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Ill. v. City OF ST. Charles & Fred T.L. Norris
  794 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 59×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the prominent display of a Latin cross on a public building during Christmas, even if part of a larger display, likely violates the Establishment Clause because it signifies governmental support for Christianity and is not a traditional Christmas symbol.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First Fin. Grp. OF Tex.
  645 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 59×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to SEC preliminary injunctions and that the district court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver despite a pending bankruptcy petition.
• Town Court Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Beal
  586 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 59×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the nursing home's due process claim regarding termination of its Medicare provider agreement, even without full exhaustion of administrative remedies, due to the colorable nature of the constitutional claim.
• The Haverhill Gazette Co. v. Union Leader Corp.
  333 F.2d 798· 1st Cir.· 1964-06-08 ·cited 57×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the master's findings on damages were infected by serious errors regarding causation standards and the application of collateral estoppel, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Spectro Foods Corp.
  544 F.2d 1175· 3d Cir.· 1976-10-13 ·cited 56×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that certain provisions of the preliminary injunction were overly broad and unsupported by evidence, and that the civil contempt order, based on those provisions, must be vacated. The court also found that the contempt proceedings lacked due process for any potenti
• Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty. v. Daly N. Braxton and Sharon Braxton
  326 F.2d 616· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-10 ·cited 56×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The dissenting judge believes the order is not a final decision and that the majority erred in applying Brown v. Board of Education to racial personnel assignments without proof of injury.
• Shondel v. McDERMOTT
  775 F.2d 859· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 55×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that Shondel lacks standing to sue based on the violation of her stepfather's constitutional rights.