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

• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• Mar-Len OF La., Inc. v. Parsons-Gilbane
  732 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 28×
  The Enelow-Ettelson rule, which distinguishes appealability based on law/equity, should be reconsidered and abandoned due to its archaic nature and the advent of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Allegheny Cnty. Sanitary Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (EPA)
  732 F.2d 1167· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 28×
  A state agency and its officials cannot be sued in federal court for alleged violations of state law, and the Water Pollution Control Act does not create a federal right of action against them. The Act also preempts claims against the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• United States v. Bedford Assocs.
  618 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from the preliminary injunction's condition requiring payment of utilities, and that the district court had jurisdiction to impose such a condition, but the injunction must be modified.
• Loya v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  583 F.2d 1110· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of class certification is not appealable, but the district court's grant of partial summary judgment denying injunctive relief is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Wrist-Rocket Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co.
  578 F.2d 727· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the prior registration's incontestability was limited by Saunders' pre-existing common-law rights in specific geographic areas, and reversed the award of damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to insufficient notice.
• Cole v. Forrest Tuttle
  540 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against the appellees because the appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the order dismissing those appellees.
• 28 E. Jackson Enters., Inc. v. Cullerton
  523 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin the sale of property despite principles of comity, as the adequacy of state remedies is uncertain.
• United States v. Towers
  404 F.2d 329· 3d Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the orders appealed from are not appealable interlocutory orders nor final orders, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Travel Consultants, Inc. v. Travel Mgmt. Corp.
  367 F.2d 334· D.C. Cir.· 1966-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an order staying a counterclaim for damages pending arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order, while an order staying a defense to an equitable action is not.
• Stiller v. Squeez-A-Purse Corp.
  251 F.2d 561· 6th Cir.· 1958-01-23 ·cited 28×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  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.
• Interstate Material Corp. v. City OF Chicago
  847 F.2d 1285· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying federal proceedings pending resolution of a parallel state court action, and that the order denying the motion to dissolve the stay was appealable.
• Gillis v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  759 F.2d 565· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that an order dismissing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was not immediately appealable as an interlocutory order, but jurisdiction was established because the remaining claims against the hospitals were later dismissed, rendering the appeal final
• Coastal Indus., Inc. v. Automatic Steam Prods. Corp.
  654 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-28 ·cited 27×
  An arbitration clause on the back of an invoice is not binding if it constitutes a material alteration and was not expressly assented to by the parties, particularly under New York law.
• H. W. Caldwell & SON, Inc. v. Use
  407 F.2d 21· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-11 ·cited 27×
  The order denying a stay of a subcontractor's Miller Act claim pending administrative remedies is appealable as an interlocutory order denying injunctive relief, and the stay was correctly denied because the subcontractor is not bound by the prime contract's disputes clause.
• Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott
  869 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 26×
  The court should hold the Church estopped from appealing the denial of its subsequent application for preliminary relief.
• Buckhanon v. Percy
  708 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the June 1, 1982 order was appealable as it raised a new issue (Eleventh Amendment immunity) not previously litigated, but the appeal was limited to that issue. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits retroactive AFDC payments for the period before the January 14, 19
• Weit v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  535 F.2d 1010· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would hold that interlocutory orders denying class certification and regarding notification are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Kaufman v. Hon. David N. Edelstein
  539 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The denial of a motion to quash subpoenas for expert witnesses is neither appealable nor subject to a writ of mandamus.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  511 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that maintaining racially segregated unions violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it tends to deprive individuals of employment opportunities and adversely affects their status, and that merger of such locals is the appropriate remedy.
• Buffler v. Elec. Computer Programming Inst., Inc.
  466 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 26×
  An order granting a preliminary injunction against arbitration proceedings is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court improvidently exercised its discretion in issuing such an injunction without sufficient basis.
• Belknap v. Leary
  427 F.2d 496· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a temporary restraining order, even if short-lived, can be appealable if it functions as a mandatory injunction. However, the order in this case was vacated as an abuse of discretion.
• Alart Assocs., Inc. v. Cy Aptaker & Preview Distribs., Inc.
  402 F.2d 779· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-28 ·cited 26×
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment, even with a sanction, is not immediately appealable as a final decision or under the collateral order doctrine.
• Chapman v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
  401 F.2d 626· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-25 ·cited 26×
  The denial of a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration is not an immediately appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying action seeks substantial equitable relief, even if legal relief is also sought.
• Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co.
  759 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions to dissolve the preliminary injunction and dismissed appeals challenging orders that barred evidence of fraud and denied summary judgment, based on the law of the case doctrine.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Interstate Dress Carriers
  610 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-19 ·cited 25×
  The district court's order impounding ballots pending discovery was an appealable preliminary injunction, but the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the employer's counterclaim challenging the representation proceeding's procedural irregularities.
• Roach v. Churchman
  457 F.2d 1101· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion for a consent judgment was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor was it an injunction or otherwise reviewable by mandamus or interlocutory appeal.
• Alascom, Inc. v. ITT N. Elec. Co.
  727 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that none of the appellant's claims were arbitrable under the contract's arbitration provision, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in staying arbitration and refusing to stay its own proceedings.
• Presinzano v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
  726 F.2d 105· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that administrative agencies have broad discretion in deciding whether to initiate enforcement proceedings, and this discretion is not limited by regulations that suggest conciliation efforts. The court also found jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. W. Pa. Motor Carriers Ass'n
  660 F.2d 76· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the injunction against employers with whom the union had no contract exceeded the court's jurisdiction under Section 301.
• Fern v. Thorp Pub. Sch.
  532 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing factors for a preliminary injunction, and therefore the injunction should not be vacated.
• W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Carlisle Corp.
  529 F.2d 614· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the patent validity and infringement issues related to the injunction but not the antitrust counterclaim. Patent '292 was valid and infringed, while Patent '956 was invalid as obvious.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Myers
  439 F.2d 834· 3d Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that neither the contempt order nor the order requiring deposit of sale proceeds were final and appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
• Loew's Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Park-In Theatres, Inc.
  174 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1949-04-08 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  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.
• Miami Heat Ltd. P'ship v. Leahy
  682 So. 2d 198· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-10-24 ·cited 23×
  Miami Heat Limited Partnership and related parties sought to enjoin the placement of a ballot initiative on the November 1996 election ballot, challenging both the initiative petition's compliance with Dade County Code and the clarity of the ballot language. The Third District Co
• H.C. Lawton, JR., Inc. v. Truck Drivers
  755 F.2d 324· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 23×
  A denial of a stay pending arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying action is legal in nature and the arbitration is sought as an equitable defense. Disputes involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargain
• Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp.
  727 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to compel arbitration pending a trial on the existence of the arbitration agreement is a nonappealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Pettinelli v. Danzig
  644 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order granting partial and full summary judgment was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), nor was it an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc.
  644 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 23×
  An order granting a stay of arbitration pending the outcome of litigation is an appealable interlocutory order, but an order denying a stay of litigation in admiralty is not.
• Jeske v. Brooks
  875 F.2d 71· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that federal securities claims are arbitrable, and the arbitration clause is valid despite the rescinded SEC Rule 15c2-2. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the order compelling arbitration of state law claims.
• Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Davy Int'l
  770 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is an appealable order, and the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate through participation in discovery.
• Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Much
  754 F.2d 773· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order vacating and remanding only the damages portion of an arbitration award is not a final judgment appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it requires more than ministerial action and does not moot the issues on appeal. The court also held that the ord
• 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.
• Poriss v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc.
  685 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-05 ·cited 22×
  An order denying a stay of litigation pending arbitration is not appealable as a final decision or collateral order if the underlying action is equitable in nature.
• Nicodemus v. Chrysler Corp.
  596 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction because the district judge's conduct and remarks during the hearing demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality, requiring remand to a different judge.
• Jo-Ann Evans Gardner v. Westinghouse Broad. Co.
  559 F.2d 209· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 22×
  The denial of class certification is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not directly deny injunctive relief and remains reviewable after final judgment. A named plaintiff may still have standing to appeal such a denial, even after receiving
• McGILL v. Parsons
  532 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in vacating its order certifying the suit as a class action and establishing guidelines for probable cause hearings, as the claims were not moot.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  534 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying dissolution of a preliminary injunction is rendered moot and will be dismissed if a final decree has since been entered that makes the preliminary injunction permanent.
• Brannon v. Warn Bros., Inc.
  508 F.2d 115· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable, but an order denying a motion to stay is appealable if the underlying action could have been brought at law and the stay sought an equitable defense. The court reversed the denial of the stay, remanding f