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

• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Stein
  410 F.2d 483· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-09 ·cited 22×
  An order granting partial summary judgment for specific performance of a collateral deposit provision in an indemnity agreement is not a final decision and is not appealable as an injunction.
• Allied AIR Freight, Inc. v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  340 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order staying an antitrust action pending administrative review by the Civil Aeronautics Board is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co.
  239 F.2d 774· 6th Cir.· 1957-01-11 ·cited 22×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  Venue is proper in the district where a corporation is licensed to do business, and the first-filed action is determined by the filing date, not service date.
• Coal. FOR Equitable Minority Participation IN Architectural Contracts IN Tenn. (Compact) v. Metro. Gov't OF Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
  786 F.2d 227· 6th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 21×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court abused its discretion by certifying a partial summary judgment order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) without providing adequate reasoning. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Commercial Sec. Bank v. Walker Bank & Tr. Co.
  456 F.2d 1352· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a restraining order against the United States when the United States had not been served with process and had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
• Nesslage v. York Sec., Inc.
  823 F.2d 231· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claims and civil RICO claims are subject to arbitration under a margin agreement, even if the enforcing parties were not signatories to the agreement. The court also held that the order compelling arbitration was appealable.
• W. Publ'g Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc.
  799 F.2d 1219· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that West's arrangement of cases in its National Reporter System publications is copyrightable, and MDC's proposed 'star pagination' feature infringes upon that copyright.
• 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
• Curlott v. Campbell
  598 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the October 11 judgment was not a final appealable order, thus res judicata did not bar consideration of the due process claims. It further held that pre-reduction due process procedures were not constitutionally required for supplementary COLA benefits, as th
• Chilton M. Wilkins v. Rogers
  581 F.2d 399· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order for Suit 1 and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims in Suit 2, finding no federal jurisdiction and proper abstention.
• 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.
• In re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Frost Patent (ten cases)
  540 F.2d 601· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that General Tire committed fraud on the Patent Office by failing to disclose material experimental data, rendering the Frost patent invalid as to flexible polyether urethane foams.
• Hart v. Orion Ins. Co. Ltd.
  427 F.2d 528· 10th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 20×
  An order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it appealable under § 1292(a)(1) if the stay was not sought to determine an equitable defense or counterclaim.
• Smith v. Grady
  411 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction limiting picketing, the absolute prohibition on uttering any sounds was an abuse of discretion and must be modified to allow non-violent, non-threatening speech.
• Giancana v. Marlin W. Johnson
  335 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege or demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory minimum, and also failed to identify a specific Act of Congress for the civil rights claim.
• Div. 689 v. Cap. Transit Co.
  227 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 20×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
• Craton Liddell v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF ST. Louis
  693 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that many of the appeals filed were not appealable as they were not final orders or did not fall under exceptions for interlocutory appeals, while others were permitted to proceed.
• Data Cash Sys., Inc. v. JS&A Grp., Inc.
  628 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's distribution of its computer chess game without copyright notice on the ROM or game itself constituted publication, forfeiting copyright protection under the 1909 Act, and that section 21 did not excuse the complete omission of notice.
• Bechtel Corp. & Bechtel Power Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  544 F.2d 1207· 3d Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the National Agreement's arbitration provision prevails over the Local Agreement's exceptions, and that jurisdictional disputes must be resolved by the National Joint Board, not an arbitrator.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Mountain Ridge State Bank v. Shain
  944 F.2d 129· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-04 ·cited 18×
  A law firm's state law retaining lien on a failed bank's files is superseded by FIRREA's exclusive claims procedure, and thus cannot be used to circumvent that process or demand immediate payment.
• VDA v. Drexel
  855 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order compelling arbitration and retaining jurisdiction is not immediately appealable as a final judgment, injunction, or collateral order.
• Patten Sec. Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Greyhound & Genetics, Inc.
  819 F.2d 400· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the order staying the action pending arbitration, and that the order should be affirmed because the party is bound by NASD arbitration rules and the forum selection clause did not waive arbitration rights.
• Szabo v. U.S. Marine Corp.
  819 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 18×
  An employer's meetings with employees to discuss terms and conditions of employment, even if framed as addressing safety or comfort, can constitute an unfair labor practice if they undermine the union's role as exclusive bargaining representative. However, expressions of anti-uni
• Elliott v. Hinds
  786 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that defamation coupled with discharge can state a § 1983 claim for deprivation of a liberty interest. However, pendant state law claims are not appealable without proper certification.
• Volma Overton v. City OF Austin
  748 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's inaction did not constitute an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because no injunction was explicitly refused and no immediate irreparable harm would result from the delay. The court also denied the writ of mandamus.
• Godinez v. Lane
  733 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 18×
  The court reversed the district court's order modifying the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary factors for its issuance.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• James P. Kartell, M.D. v. Rodkey, M.D.
  687 F.2d 543· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's order allowing intervention but barring new claims is not a final order and does not constitute an appealable denial of injunctive relief, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Cannon v. Breed
  565 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the dismissal of an alleged class action where the individual claim of the class representative had become moot and the class had not been properly certified by the district court.
• In re Helena Marine Serv. v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.
  564 F.2d 15· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dissolve an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding because the potential for multiple claims, including Mrs. Fiers' claim and Sioux City's indemnity claim, meant it was not a cl
• Se. Enameling Corp. v. Gen. Bronze Corp.
  434 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 18×
  A party is bound by the terms of a written contract signed by its agent, even if the agent did not read all the terms, absent fraud or misrepresentation.
• Bernardo Penoro v. Rederi A/B Disa and Vessel Disa
  376 F.2d 125· 2d Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 18×
  An order granting a stay of an admiralty proceeding pending arbitration is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Solomon v. Honorable Walter Bruchhausen
  305 F.2d 941· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in allowing cross-libels for abuse of process and staying the seamen's wage actions, as this violated the statutory policy of free access for seamen's wage claims.
• Korea Shipping Corp. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n
  811 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an order compelling payment of pension contributions pending resolution of a dispute, issued under statutory authority, is not a preliminary injunction appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless irreparable harm is shown.
• Santana v. Jenaro Collazo Collazo
  714 F.2d 1172· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that while juveniles do not have a constitutional right to rehabilitative treatment, the conditions of their confinement, particularly in isolation, are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Due Process Clause and Eighth Amendment, and may be unconstitutional if
• In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig. Magnesco Rests., Inc. v. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc.
  689 F.2d 1150· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a temporary restraining order extended indefinitely by consent becomes appealable as a preliminary injunction, and that a civil contempt order arising from such an order is also appealable. The court affirmed the finding of contempt against Arthur Treacher's a
• Keyes v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  895 F.2d 659· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of unitary status was not moot and that jurisdiction was proper, but the appeal from the order requiring the district to submit plans was moot. The court affirmed the district court's finding of non-unitariness and upheld the interim
• Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Duncan
  714 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
• Plymouth Cnty. Nuclear Info. Comm., Inc. v. Boston Edison Co.
  655 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order striking claims for injunctive relief was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm pending final judgment.
• Tagupa v. East-West Ctr., Inc.
  642 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order refusing to compel federal defendants to investigate discrimination claims was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that mandamus relief was unavailable.
• Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Waldman
  634 F.2d 127· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without providing adequate notice and opportunity for the opposing party to present materials.
• Robbins v. George W. Prescott Publ'g Co., Inc.
  614 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court improperly ordered arbitration and interfered with the collective bargaining process by compelling arbitration after the union had already decided not to pursue the grievance.
• Complaint of Mucho K, Inc. v. Mucho K, Inc.
  578 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 16×
  In a single claim limitation of liability action, a district court must allow claimants to pursue separate actions, subject to the admiralty court's exclusive control over the limitation fund.
• Garzaro v. The Univ. OF Puerto RICO
  575 F.2d 335· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the interlocutory injunction was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed it, deferring full review of the merits to an appeal from the final judgment.
• Plekowski v. Ralston-Purina Co.
  557 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy for the alleged errors, and the denial of class certification is appealable in the ordinary course after final judgment.
• Major v. Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc.
  561 F.2d 1112· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order clarifying a prior injunction was not a final decision nor an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
• Holton v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr.
  560 F.2d 575· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the dismissal order is appealable as an interlocutory order denying injunctive relief and vacated the dismissal, remanding for the district court to consider the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings.
• Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat'l Corp. & Arcata Graphics Corp.
  552 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating an injunction based on extra-record impressions rather than objective record facts, and that the California action constituted a compulsory counterclaim.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sloan
  535 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal, finding most of the orders non-appealable interlocutory decisions.
• 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.