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

• Microsoftware Computer Sys., Inc. v. Ontel Corp.
  686 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the denial of a stay motion, sought to defer to concurrent state court proceedings, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay is sought to enable the prior determination of an equitable defense.
• Ramsey Alexander and Robert F. Newman v. Aero Lodge NO. 735, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  565 F.2d 1364· 6th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 52×
  The court held that while individual discrimination claims could be affirmed, class-wide findings of discrimination and the resulting injunctive relief were improper and vacated. The court also affirmed the dismissal of one individual claim while reversing another.
• United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  320 F.2d 509· 3d Cir.· 1963-06-05 ·cited 52×
  The court held that interlocutory orders granting injunctions are appealable to the courts of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), even in antitrust cases, unless a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is specifically provided.
• Roberts v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  653 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court's order refusing to dissolve the consent decree was appealable as of right and that the consent decree's seniority provisions remain binding on the parties.
• Taylor v. Sterrett
  640 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 could only be awarded for work on supplemental enforcement proceedings pending on the effective date of the statute, not for the initial case if fees had been denied. It affirmed the denial of fees for two organizations d
• In re Reuben F. Leimer v. Reuben F. Leimer
  724 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 50×
  The court held that an order denying relief from a bankruptcy stay is a final order, and thus the district court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co.
  654 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to sua sponte order a party to arbitrate an issue not previously agreed upon or submitted, and that FLSA claims were not subject to the exhaustion requirement.
• 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.
• I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc.
  789 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 49×
  An interlocutory order requiring interim withdrawal liability payments is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the appellant fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Joslyn N. Williams and Robert L. Bostick v. Mumford
  511 F.2d 363· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 49×
  The court held that an order refusing to certify a class action is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Heldina Eluska v. Andrus
  587 F.2d 996· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a district court's order denying summary judgment and remanding a case to an administrative agency for further proceedings is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order denying injunctive relief under § 1292(a)(1).
• Stateside Mach. Co., Ltd. v. Alperin
  526 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 48×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not cause irreparable harm, and a stay of a hybrid legal/equitable action is also not appealable.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings (U. S. Steel-Clairton Works)
  525 F.2d 151· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a district court's indefinite stay of a federal grand jury investigation, based on the existence of parallel state enforcement proceedings, is an appealable final decision and constitutes an unwarranted encroachment on the grand jury's plenary authority.
• 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
• Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  860 F.2d 1022· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot because the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applied, allowing review of the "temporary restraining order" despite the appellant's compliance.
• Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
  671 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 47×
• Patterson v. Portch
  853 F.2d 1399· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Patterson's appeal from the grant of summary judgment to Fort must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, but affirmed the injunction ordering a new hearing before Portch. The court also discussed the principles of due process, property rights in pub
• Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  723 F.2d 1068· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals as of right, and denied petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition, because the district court's denial of a stay was a discretionary order not subject to immediate appellate review.
• Miller v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.
  791 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 45×
  The court held that an order compelling arbitration of some but not all claims in a pending suit is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) via the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine. It also found that while the 1934 Act claims are not arbitrable, the state law claim is, and r
• Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank G. Zarb
  516 F.2d 1397· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-04-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Section 211(d)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act does not preclude appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) for appeals from preliminary injunction orders.
• Wallace v. Norman Indus., Inc.
  467 F.2d 824· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to stay proceedings is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying action was one at law and the stay was sought to determine an equitable defense or counterclaim.
• In re the Grand Jury Investigation OF Violations OF 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (Perjury)
  318 F.2d 533· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the order denying General Motors' motion to limit a grand jury investigation is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp.
  797 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 43×
  An interlocutory order requiring a party to set aside assets to satisfy a potential judgment, even if similar to an attachment, is appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it is coercive and treated as such by the parties and the court. Furthermore,
• Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  522 F.2d 1235· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction, which was predicated on the prior denial of class action certification, is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court also held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination
• NEW York Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  445 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 43×
  The court should not interpret a consent order's scope without a hearing, even if its language appears unambiguous, when there's a dispute about the parties' intent.
• LOU v. Belzberg
  834 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 42×
  State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims, and the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state proceedings except in very limited circumstances.
• Huie v. Bowen
  788 F.2d 698· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to award retroactive benefits pending reconsideration under the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, and that such an award was proper.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that the dispute at issue was a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, not subject to arbitration.
• Mellon Bank v. Pritchard-Keang NAM Corp.
  651 F.2d 1244· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order staying proceedings pending arbitration was not a final order and not appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Cotler v. Inter-County Orthopaedic Ass'n, P. A.
  526 F.2d 537· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court's orders staying federal proceedings and administratively terminating the action were beyond its lawful power and remediable by mandamus.
• W. Geophysical Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Bolt Assocs., Inc.
  463 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's judgment, which determined liability but not damages, was not properly before the court as a final appealable order, and thus the motion to dismiss the appeal was granted.
• Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp.
  417 F.2d 621· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the manufacturer's challenges to the district court's findings of fact and conclusions regarding irreparable injury were without merit, and affirmed the district court's orders.
• Commerce Park AT DFW Freeport v. Mardian Constr. Co.
  729 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 41×
  A district court's order staying litigation pending arbitration is not an injunction and thus not subject to the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d); furthermore, state laws that conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act are preempted.
• Gould v. Control Laser Corp.
  650 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 41×
  The court held that summary judgment orders are not appealable as interlocutory orders denying injunctions unless the appellant demonstrates a substantial threat of irreparable injury and that the order can only be effectually challenged by immediate appeal.
• 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.
• Diversified Mortg. Invs. v. U. S. Life Title Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  544 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 40×
  A preliminary injunction should not rewrite a contract or grant final relief, and requires a showing of irreparable harm causally related to the enjoined conduct.
• Silva v. Romney
  473 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1973-02-02 ·cited 40×
  A private developer, partnered with a federal agency for a housing project, can be enjoined from taking actions affecting the environment pending the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
• Great Lakes Rubber Corp. v. Herbert Cooper Co., Inc.
  286 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Great Lakes' counterclaim was compulsory and thus the court had ancillary jurisdiction to hear it.
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  213 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-12 ·cited 40×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  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.
• Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Allstate Indem. Co.
  722 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not unambiguously mandate appraisal as a condition precedent to filing suit, and therefore the district court erred in ordering appraisal.
• Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinea v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  651 F.2d 877· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a Rule 37 sanction to establish jurisdictional facts without requiring the plaintiff to first undertake discovery at the defendants' home base.
• W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Milgo Elec. Corp. & Int'l Commc'ns Corp.
  568 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's partial summary judgment order was neither a final decision under the collateral order doctrine nor an appealable interlocutory order refusing an injunction.
• Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  498 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court's order, which granted judgment on one claim and stayed another, was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• City OF Naples v. The Prepakt Concrete Co. & Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  494 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 39×
  An order granting arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4 is a final and appealable order, and the time to appeal it has expired.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-Housemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  905 F.2d 610· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Administrator had the authority to override the GEB's Resolution and that the Resolution was not a reasonable interpretation of the IBT Constitution. The court also affirmed the district court's jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o
• In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. & Moseley v. Flight Transp. Corp.
  730 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Sharing Agreement is a settlement, not a reorganization plan, and that approving a settlement roughly splitting the constructive trust claim was not an abuse of discretion given the substantial legal questions involved. However, the exclusion of certain de
• Doctor v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  540 F.2d 699· 4th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the denial of class certification for most plaintiffs was not an abuse of discretion, and the appeal was properly considered despite a late filing. The dismissal of unions with which plaintiffs were not affiliated was also affirmed.
• 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.
• Lone Star Cement Corp. v. The Fed. Trade Comm'n
  339 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive and declaratory relief prior to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as the jurisdictional question was not free from doubt and the potential injury did not constitute irreparable harm