28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1) (Interlocutory Appeals Of Injunctions)

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

• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  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.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, PAA Chapter, AFL-CIO
  306 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the flight engineers' strike was not permissible because the "crew complement" and "representation" issues had not been subjected to the required procedures under the Railway Labor Act.
• Hyde Constr. Co., Inc. v. Koehring Co.
  388 F.2d 501· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 48×
  The Court of Appeals held that the federal injunction restraining the state court proceedings was invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and that the civil contempt adjudication must be vacated. The Court also held that the Mississippi state court had jurisdiction to proceed, and the Mis
• Green v. Dep't OF Commerce
  618 F.2d 836· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court's order was not a final judgment and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Acct. Serv. Corp.
  514 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that interlocutory orders granting writs of attachment, finding civil contempt, and imposing fines for civil contempt are generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1), absent specific circumstances not present here.
• Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc.
  735 F.2d 763· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a motion to transfer a federal action to another federal court is distinguishable from a motion to dismiss in favor of a foreign court.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc.
  805 F.2d 351· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction because Tri-State demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, a public interest favoring the injunction, and raised serious questions going to t
• La. World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue
  746 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a "minute order" making a preliminary injunction permanent satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, granting appellate jurisdiction, and that the district court's finding of likelihood of confusion was not clearly erroneous.
• Wilson Wear, Inc. v. United Merchs. & Mfrs., Inc.
  713 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 20×
  An order granting a stay of judicial proceedings pending arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying cause of action is legal, and claims of rescission of the entire contract, rather than the arbitration clause itself, are for the arbitrator to decide
• GAY v. Waiters' & Dairy Lunchmen's Union
  549 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a trial court must consider the broad remedial purposes of Title VII and liberally interpret Rule 23 when determining class certification, reversing the denial of certification.
• Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co.
  502 F.2d 178· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an injunction improperly allowed an appeal of an otherwise unappealable venue decision, violating the finality rule.
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• W. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Rose ART Indus., Inc.
  910 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Fisher
  864 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the EPA's new suit for access to Fisher's land under CERCLA was not barred by a prior consent decree, and the district court properly granted equitable relief.
• 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.
• Inmates OF SAN Diego Cnty. Jail IN Cell Block 3B & Jason Elliot Roman HI v. Duffy
  528 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of class certification and preliminary injunctive relief for pretrial detainees is appealable and that the district court erred in applying precedent for convicted prisoners and in denying severance.
• Sherri A.D. v. W.N. Kirby
  975 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the magistrate judge's order directing Sherri's transfer to community housing, affirming that order. However, it declined to hear appeals on other interlocutory matters.
• Showtime/THE Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  881 F.2d 983· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the permanent injunction and in part the grant of summary judgment, holding that the defendants failed to meet the requirements for statutory exemption from liability under the Federal Communications Act.
• 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.
• Williams v. Wallace Silversmiths, Inc.
  566 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 6×
  An order denying class certification is interlocutory and generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it effectively denies an injunction.
• Parents' Comm. OF Pub. Sch. 19 v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Cmty. Sch. Dist. NO. 14 OF the City OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 1138· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order under appeal, while not a traditional injunction, was appealable under the collateral order doctrine as it required significant expenditure and addressed a novel issue.
• United States v. Certified Indus., Inc.
  361 F.2d 857· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the substitution of a bond for a mechanic's lien did not fundamentally alter the nature of the state court's in rem foreclosure action, thus the federal court could not enjoin the state proceedings.
• United States v. Bayshore Assocs., Inc.
  934 F.2d 1389· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-30
  The court held that the "permanent injunction" was a preliminary injunction, that the TRO extended by stipulation became a preliminary injunction, and that the April 12 contempt order's fine was criminal, while the incarceration was civil.