28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)

521 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 15 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Carter Carburetor
  577 F.2d 43· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its judicial power by issuing a discovery sanctions order that improperly limited the EEOC's evidence, and therefore issued a writ of mandamus to withdraw the order.
• Bettye J. Smith v. Merchs. & Farmers Bank of W. Helena
  574 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class action certification because the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof, particularly regarding the adequacy of representation and the failure to brief key issues.
• 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.
• 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.
• Spencer Cos., Inc. v. Armonk Indus., Inc.
  489 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order, under the circumstances, was appealable as a denial of a preliminary injunction, but affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
• GUY v. Citizens Fid. Bank & Tr. Co.
  429 F.2d 828· 6th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the interpleader action and validly exercised nationwide process under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 for an in rem action concerning personal property.
• United States v. Platt Contracting Co., Inc.
  324 F.2d 95· 1st Cir.· 1963-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that both orders constituted interlocutory injunctions, granting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and affirmed the district court's decisions.
• Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Citizens Nat. Bank in Abilene
  212 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-14 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  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
• MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
  991 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that loading MAI software into RAM constitutes copyright infringement and that soliciting MAI customers using information from MAI's customer database constitutes trade secret misappropriation.
• Polymer Tech. Corp. v. Emile Mimran
  975 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the sale of products by a distributor.
• Geneva Assurance Syndicate v. Med. Emergency Servs. Assocs. (Mesa) S.C.
  964 F.2d 599· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 3×
  A temporary restraining order, even if labeled as such and extended by agreement, is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Shihadeh v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  766 F.2d 461· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 3×
  The district court's order compelling arbitration of one claim and staying others is affirmed in part and remanded in part. The Supreme Court's decision in Byrd mandates arbitration of arbitrable claims, rejecting the 'intertwining doctrine'.
• Frith v. Blazon-Flexible Flyer, Inc.
  512 F.2d 899· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a district court judge cannot issue an injunction that contradicts a prior, unreviewable remand order by another judge in the same court.
• 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.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. for Peoples Sav. & Loan Ass'ns v. Ruggiero
  994 F.2d 1221· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×
  Orders imposing a resulting trust and requiring turnover of property in a post-judgment supplementary proceeding are appealable as injunctions, and the trial court did not err in granting relief without a formal summary judgment motion when no genuine issues of material fact exis
• Feinstein v. Space Ventures, Inc.
  989 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying a contract theory to a claim that sounded in common law duty of confidentiality, thus vacating the preliminary injunction.
• Ricci v. Robert L. Okin, M.D.
  978 F.2d 764· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of the district court's order extending the October 1986 Order, as the extension did not technically continue an injunction and was a procedural step.
• United States v. Jenkins
  974 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss a pretrial restraining order issued under RICO is an immediately appealable interlocutory order, and the order itself was not an impermissible prior restraint or overbroad.
• qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 834· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's misrepresentations, and that pendent appellate jurisdiction did not extend to reviewing the summary judgment ruling.
• The Middleby Corp. v. Hussmann Corp.
  962 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's consolidation of two cases, one seeking enforcement of an arbitration award and the other alleging fraud, did not constitute a final appealable order.
• MAI Basic Four, Inc. v. Basis, Inc.
  962 F.2d 978· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the injunction itself was overly broad and not supported by the findings of vexatious conduct.
• The Omaha Indem. Co. & The Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Wining
  949 F.2d 235· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that interlocutory orders restraining asset transfers and appointing a receiver, issued in the context of civil contempt proceedings, were appealable as modifications of a preliminary injunction and were a proper exercise of the district court's equitable discretio
• Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co.
  945 F.2d 1272· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  An interlocutory order enjoining a party from prosecuting a related action in another district court is not an immediately appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it does not grant or protect the substantive relief sought by the claimant.
• Vuitton v. Helene White
  945 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 2×
  An order denying an application for an ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) is immediately appealable as a denial of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court's refusal to grant such an order in this case was an abuse of discretion.
• Great Am. Audio Corp. v. Metacom, Inc.
  938 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion, but dismissed the appeal of the denial of permanent injunctive relief due to lack of a final judgment.
• United States v. State OF Colo.
  937 F.2d 505· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court cannot unilaterally modify the terms of a consent decree agreed upon by the parties, as this constitutes an abuse of authority.
• Lakedreams v. Taylor
  932 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  756 F. Supp. 1498· M.D. Fla.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The Court holds that Scientology has standing to sue and that Clearwater Ordinance 3479-84 is constitutional. The Court grants Scientology's motion for partial summary judgment on standing but denies it on other issues, while denying Clearwater's motion on standing but granting i
• Ross v. Zavarella
  916 F.2d 898· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of an appealable order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or that the order could only be effectively challenged by immediate appeal.
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  909 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 2×
  An order confirming an arbitration award that mandates employee reinstatement is an appealable injunction, even if other relief remains pending before the arbitrator. The district court retains jurisdiction to consider contempt proceedings while the appeal is pending.
• Lunde v. Helms
  898 F.2d 1343· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court holds it lacks jurisdiction to review orders denying disqualification and staying proceedings, but affirms the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
• Black Ass'n OF NEW Orleans Fire Fighters (Banoff) v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  853 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union had standing to challenge the district court's order and that the order was injunctive in nature, not a consent decree. The court reversed the denial of the union's motion to vacate and remanded for a hearing.
• F.W. Kerr Chem. Co. v. Crandall Assoc., Inc.
  815 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal from the denial of the third motion for preliminary injunction was untimely, as the right of appeal arose from the earlier denial of the second motion.
• Hastings-Murtagh v. Tex. Air Corp.
  649 F. Supp. 479· S.D. Fla.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighed the harm to the defendant.
• Dias v. Bank OF Haw.
  764 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 2×
  An order staying execution of a federal TILA judgment to permit a state court to decide a claim that might be set off is appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson rule as an interlocutory order relating to an injunction.
• Liane Buix McDONALD v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  745 F.2d 1081· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's allocation of burdens of proof and production, but remanded the Overton claim for further proceedings.
• Schwenke v. Secretary OF THE Interior
  720 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Executive Order 7509 established a limited priority for wildlife, not an absolute one, and that the 1976 Amendments did not revoke this priority scheme but did change the governing statute to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
• First Heritage Corp. v. Prescott
  710 F.2d 1205· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a stay pending arbitration because the order was not final and was based on an undeveloped record.
• Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc.
  654 F.2d 300· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court should be directed to enter the consent decree with a modification regarding notice and further proceedings for Class 2 members.
• Diaz v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Dade Cnty.
  502 F. Supp. 190· S.D. Fla.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent a referendum vote on a proposed ordinance is not warranted because the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional and the issue of its constitutionality is not ripe for adjudication.
• Yeargin Constr. Co., Inc. v. Parsons & Whittemore Ala. Mach. & Servs. Corp. & Parsons & Whittemore, Inc.
  609 F.2d 829· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the portion of the order requiring the turnover of records was a proper exercise of equitable power to preserve the status quo and was therefore affirmed.
• NEW York Ass'n OF Homes FOR Aging v. Toia
  559 F.2d 876· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court's orders denying class-based preliminary injunctive relief are not appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Groves v. McLUCAS
  552 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying back pay and attorney's fees in a preliminary injunction order for reinstatement.
• City OF Parma v. Levi
  536 F.2d 133· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-11 ·cited 2×
  A party cannot maintain a separate action for an injunction based on claims that were raised as a compulsory counterclaim and dismissed in a pending action.
• Tapeswitch Corp. OF Am. v. Recora Co., Inc.
  527 F.2d 1013· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 2×
  An interlocutory order dismissing a patent infringement complaint, which also sought an injunction, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an order refusing an injunction, even if other claims remain unresolved.
• Russell Box Co. v. Grant Paper Box Co.
  179 F.2d 785· 1st Cir.· 1950-02-02 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  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.
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  773 F. Supp. 321· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the lawsuit did not vindicate its rights, did not result in the cessation of the challenged behavior, and did not materially alter the legal relationship of the
• Positano Place at Naples IV Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
  11th Cir.· 2023-05-31
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a district court order compelling insurance policyholder Positano to submit to appraisal of storm damage claims and staying proceedings pending appraisal, finding that the order was an interlocutory order t
• Positano Place at Naples I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
  71 F.4th 827· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-31
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction an insurance company's appeal from a district court order compelling appraisal of Hurricane Irma property damage and staying litigation pending the appraisal process. The court held that the order compelling apprai
• Positano Place at Naples II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
  11th Cir.· 2023-05-31
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by Empire Indemnity Insurance Company of a district court order compelling the insured condominium associations to submit their hurricane damage loss dispute to appraisal under the insurance policy's appraisal provision, holding that the o