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

• Blount Bros. Constr. Co. v. Troitino
  381 F.2d 267· D.C. Cir.· 1967-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to refer claims to an arbitrator and denying a motion for a stay.
• Wirtz v. Miss. Publishers Corp.
  364 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-26 ·cited 16×
  A one-year continuance of an action to enjoin violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act is appealable as an effective denial of an injunction, and the district court erred in not granting the injunction.
• Small v. Wageman
  291 F.2d 734· 1st Cir.· 1961-06-22 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court may enjoin a party from prosecuting a simultaneous action in another federal court of co-ordinate jurisdiction when it first obtains jurisdiction of the parties and issues.
• Nat'l Mach. Co. v. Waterbury Farrel Foundry & Mach. Co. & Textron, Inc.
  290 F.2d 527· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-22 ·cited 16×
  A district court's denial of leave to assert a permissive counterclaim, even if seeking injunctive relief, is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Opticians Ass'n OF Am. v. Indep. Opticians OF Am.
  920 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the trademark registrations were incontestable and the defendant failed to present a valid defense, thus the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm.
• Lafayette Brown, Jr. v. Ga. Dep't OF Revenue
  881 F.2d 1018· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the employee's claim that he was denied a right to notice of his appellate rights was deficient because he had actual notice of the rules and the due process clause does not require a state to advise an employee of appellate rights in a termination letter.
• Gilmore v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
  811 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 15×
  A defendant's explicit waiver of a motion to compel arbitration is not automatically revived by the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.
• Planned Parenthood Association/Chicago Area v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  767 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Chicago Transit Authority's advertising system had become a public forum by designation, and its rejection of Planned Parenthood's advertisement was an impermissible content-based restriction.
• Avery v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  762 F.2d 158· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court's orders regarding class definition, remand, and notice were legally correct and appealable interlocutory injunctions.
• Winfield v. ST. JOE Paper Co.
  663 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the partial summary judgment was not certified as final and the denial of the preliminary injunction was not properly before the court.
• NEW York Pathological & X-Ray Labs., Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  523 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 15×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  The dissent argues that the INS's designation of approved facilities for alien medical examinations did not require notice and a hearing under the APA or the Fifth Amendment. The appellant had no protected property interest in continued referrals.
• Transworld Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Coupon Exch., Inc.
  913 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claim and entering a permanent injunction due to an inadequate factual record regarding the reasonableness of TWA's transfer restrictions on frequent flyer coupons. However, the court affirmed t
• J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A.
  863 F.2d 315· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that all disputes arising in connection with the distribution contracts, including those labeled as conspiracy, unfair trade practices, tortious interference, conversion, abuse of process, libel, defamation, and injurious falsehood, are subject to arbitration under
• United States v. Spears
  859 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, as it was a nonfinal and nonappealable order.
• Cedrick Holmes v. Fisher
  854 F.2d 229· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 14×
  An order denying injunctive relief is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) even if a request for damages remains pending, and a plaintiff whose personal claim is moot at the time of filing cannot represent a class seeking equitable relief.
• Saber v. Financeamerica Credit Corp.
  843 F.2d 697· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order enforcing a settlement agreement was not a final decision, nor was it an appealable interlocutory order or collateral order.
• 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.
• In re City OF Springfield
  818 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order to hold a referendum is not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that mandamus is not appropriate as the City has an adequate remedy through appeal.
• Lake Commc'ns, Inc. v. ICC Corp.
  738 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering arbitration of certain claims while allowing discovery on antitrust claims, balancing the Federal Arbitration Act with antitrust enforcement policies.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Cottage Hill Operating Co.
  709 F.2d 452· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action and the sought-after defense do not meet the Enelow-Ettelson rule's requirements.
• Ass'n OF Co-Operative Members, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., Inc.
  684 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the presence of a third party's registered mark within a composite mark does not automatically defeat the user's common law trademark rights in the composite, and the third party is not a necessary party if it claims no rights in the composite mark.
• Sperry Corp. & Its Sperry Univac Div. v. City OF Minneapolis & Burroughs Corp.
  680 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to modify an injunction is appealable and that the district court did not err in determining that the settlement agreement was not a contract within the purview of competitive bidding statutes.
• Smith v. Roscoe L. Eggar
  655 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the Commissioner could not rescind the agreement based on the taxpayer's removal of papers from a bank vault, as the agreement was not ambiguous and the removal did not violate its terms.
• Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  601 F.2d 1329· 6th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's pretrial management order constituted a preliminary injunction, making it appealable, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the FTC before seeking equitable relief.
• Mehdi Hussain and Dolat M. Hussain v. Bache & Co., Inc.
  562 F.2d 1287· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 14×
  An order staying proceedings pending arbitration is not appealable if the underlying claim is primarily equitable in nature, even if legal claims are also present.
• Murrow v. Clifford
  502 F.2d 1066· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single district judge has the power to decide a non-constitutional ground in favor of plaintiffs, even if a constitutional ground exists that might require a three-judge court. However, the majority opinion concluded it was improper for a single judge to rej
• Hart v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn
  497 F.2d 1027· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's order postponing the effective date of desegregation was not an appealable order, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Clark
  432 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's remand order and dismissal of the federal action, finding that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was limited to racial equality claims and that appellants failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal injunctive relief.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Vill. of Cedar-Hurst
  201 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-07 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  The court held that there is a substantial question regarding the ordinance's validity against federal supremacy, and thus the injunction against its enforcement should be continued pending trial.
• Feldspar Trucking Co., Inc. v. Greater Atlanta Shippers Ass'n, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to refer questions to the ICC and to stay proceedings.
• Webster v. Sowders
  846 F.2d 1032· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that interim attorney fees and expert monitor costs awarded without findings on liability are not appealable interlocutorily and must be reversed and remanded. The court also held that a district court cannot impose Rule 11 sanctions for filing an appeal.
• Valero Ref., Inc. v. M/T Lauberhorn (ex Trade Endeavor)
  813 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the broad arbitration clause in the charter party encompassed the RICO claim and that the district court's denial of discovery sanctions was not a final appealable judgment.
• Hoots v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  639 F.2d 972· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 13×
  An appellate court has the power and duty to impose reasonable time limitations on a district court to resolve cases, especially those involving constitutional rights, to prevent unconscionable delay.
• State OF Cal. & the Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm'n v. Kleppe
  604 F.2d 1187· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Secretary of the Interior for air quality regulation on the OCS, precluding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
• The Nemours Found. v. Manganaro Corp.
  878 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 12×
  An order certifying questions of state law to a state supreme court is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is not sufficiently separate from the merits of the underlying dispute.
• GON v. First State Ins. Co.
  871 F.2d 863· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance policy required the insurer to pay legal expenses as they were incurred, and that contemporaneous apportionment of these expenses was not feasible given the nature of the underlying claims.
• People OF the State OF Ill. ex rel. Neil F. Hartigan v. Peters
  861 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver is not directly appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2), but can be reviewed via pendent appellate jurisdiction if inextricably entwined with an appealable order.
• Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione Montonoave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Commissario of the Flotta Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Chandris (Italy)
  858 F.2d 905· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a foreign forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was reasonably communicated and enforceable, reversing the lower court's decision.
• Chasser v. Achille Lauro Lines
  844 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
• McNASBY v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
  832 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order, which adopted the findings of a state agency, did not constitute an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as it lacked serious or irreparable consequences.
• Surgidev Corp. v. EYE Tech., Inc.
  828 F.2d 452· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's injunction against ETI for trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference, finding no clear error in factual findings or abuse of discretion in the injunction's length or modification denial.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  796 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Pan Am's appeal because the district court's disapproval of the consent decree did not have the practical effect of denying Pan Am injunctive relief, nor did it cause serious or irreparable harm.
• Nilsa Ortiz v. Eichler
  794 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Delaware's pre-hearing notice requirements for welfare benefits must be detailed, including calculations and reasons, and that claimants have a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under federal regulations.
• Mowbray v. Moseley
  795 F.2d 1111· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the order compelling arbitration was not appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine because the underlying action was predominantly legal in nature, and that the defendants could not invoke the arbitration agreement as they were not parties to it and not in
• Bradley v. Milliken
  772 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's order terminating the student code of conduct and community relations program was procedurally deficient due to lack of notice and must be vacated.
• Brown v. Kerr-McGEE Chem. Corp.
  767 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while state law claims regarding pollution and nuisances are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resolve issues pending before it before a court proceeds.
• Easter v. The Jeep Corp.
  750 F.2d 520· 6th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of individual constructive discharge and class-wide discrimination, but reversed the awards for back pay and attorney fees due to the trial judge's recusal and subsequent reassignment.
• Pantry Pride, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Tri-State Pension Fund
  747 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the request for interim payments was not a counterclaim, and therefore the order denying relief was not appealable.
• Constructora Subacuatica Diavaz, S.A. v. M/V Hiryu
  718 F.2d 690· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's order dismissing writs of attachment, garnishment, and seizure, conditioned on arbitration and posting security, was not a final judgment and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc.
  713 F.2d 875· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 12×
  An order staying state court proceedings after removal is not an appealable interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because removal automatically effects a stay and the order is merely declaratory of existing law.