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

• Ctr. FOR Nat'l Sec. Studies v. Cent. Intelligence Agency
  711 F.2d 409· D.C. Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the district court's summary judgment order, while ruling on the merits of one claim, did not resolve all issues and the appellant failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm from delaying r
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  692 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 12×
  A district court's temporary restraining order extending a tender offer's proration date is improper and appealable if it functions as a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. RMI Co.
  661 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it did not present serious, irreparable consequences and could be reviewed upon final judgment.
• Uneeda Davis v. Ball Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n
  640 F.2d 30· 7th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to seek judicial review of the Secretary's regulation adequacy and that dismissal of the claim for failure to enforce statutory duties was inappropriate.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. PSL Realty Co.
  630 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The district court did not err in issuing an injunction to prevent state courts from interfering with its jurisdiction over property in foreclosure proceedings.
• United States v. Cnty. OF Humboldt
  615 F.2d 1260· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-01 ·cited 12×
  A county cannot enforce its zoning and building codes against Indian trust property within a reservation, as Public Law 280 does not grant such jurisdiction.
• Goldberg v. Simoni
  601 F.2d 653· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's abstention order, which stayed proceedings pending state court determination of state law issues, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as a denial of a temporary injunction.
• Barrett v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  581 F.2d 132· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff veteran was entitled to the seniority status he would have enjoyed had he not entered military service, even if that status resulted from a discretionary managerial decision that occurred during his absence.
• M. Spiegel & Sons OIL Corp. v. B. P. OIL Corp.
  531 F.2d 669· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction and denying a stay or transfer, as exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA).
• Marceline M. Donaldson v. The Pillsbury Co.
  529 F.2d 979· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to reconsider a denial of class certification is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Thompson v. House OF Nine, Inc.
  482 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a stay pending arbitration is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only if the underlying action was historically at law and the stay was sought to resolve an equitable defense, and that the equitable claims he
• Atl. Richfield Co. v. OIL, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  447 F.2d 945· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot, timely, and that a Rule 54(b) certificate was not required for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief due to changed circumstances and law.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. McNEILL
  382 F.2d 84· 4th Cir.· 1967-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that cross claims arising from the same occurrence as the original interpleader action are permissible under Rule 13(g) and should be liberally applied.
• Sentry Life Ins. Co. v. Borad
  759 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 11×
  An order vacating an arbitration award is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not have the practical effect of refusing or dissolving an injunction.
• In re Fugazy Express, Inc. v. Fugazy
  982 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court's order, which required an accounting for damages and fees, was not a final order, and the district court's affirmation of that order was therefore also not final or appealable under the relevant st
• C. James Eddleman also known as Jim Eddleman v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  923 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order applying the automatic stay to a governmental action to enforce its police or regulatory power is an appealable final order, and that the Department of Labor's administrative action to enforce the Service Contract Act was exempt from the automatic sta
• W. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Rose ART Indus., Inc.
  910 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Durrett v. Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Providence
  896 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that denial of a consent decree providing injunctive relief is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it has serious consequences, and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to approve a comprehensive settlement agreement in a public housing
• Abernathy v. Southern California Edison
  885 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 10×
  Orders granting stays pending arbitration or compelling arbitration are not ordinarily appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as injunctions, even if amended to expedite the process, absent extraordinary circumstances of irreparable harm.
• DeWayne Moore v. Thieret
  862 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff has been transferred to another prison and there is no indication he is likely to be returned to the original prison.
• United States v. Fisher
  864 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the EPA's new suit for access to Fisher's land under CERCLA was not barred by a prior consent decree, and the district court properly granted equitable relief.
• Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Birenbaum
  860 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, as such orders are not automatically appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) after the repudiation of the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine.
• Ramirez v. Rivera-Dueno
  861 F.2d 328· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1984 agreement was not a settlement agreement or consent decree, and therefore the district court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a trial.
• O'Halloran v. Univ. OF Wash.
  856 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff who amends their complaint under court order after removal does not waive their right to appeal the denial of a motion to remand, and that the University's third-party complaint against the NCAA did not present a federal question, making removal im
• Hendrickson v. Griggs
  856 F.2d 1041· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 10×
  An order directing state officials to submit a plan for achieving compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it contains additional, appealable injunctive relief or specifies the
• Summersgill Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc.
  849 F.2d 955· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a denial of interim attorney's fees is not an appealable final order because it is neither conclusive nor effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  846 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to stay or refer issues to the Interstate Commerce Commission is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. The Underwriters, Inc.
  846 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order staying proceedings pending arbitration, as such an order is not a final decision and does not meet the criteria for the collateral-order doctrine or permissive appeal.
• Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. v. Cen-Vi-Ro Concrete Pipe & Prods. Co., Inc.
  776 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order to arbitrate was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Fogarty v. Piper
  767 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to make findings of fact or conclusions of law necessitates a remand for further proceedings.
• Shanks v. City OF Dallas
  752 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order denying class certification, even if based on lack of standing for injunctive relief, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it has the practical effect of denying an injunction and causes serious, irreparable harm that can
• Salinas Cooling Co. v. Fresh Fruit AND Vegetable Workers
  743 F.2d 705· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's stay order and that the claims against individual union members were properly dismissed. The court also held that the arbitrability of the dispute must be decided by the court, not an arbitrator.
• Blake v. Zant
  737 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order granting a writ of habeas corpus on some claims, but not all, is not a final appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Pepper v. Miani
  734 F.2d 1420· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to stay proceedings because the order was not an interlocutory order refusing an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Delo H. Caspary v. The La. Land & Exploration Co.
  725 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 10×
  An appellate court has jurisdiction to permit a plaintiff to amend their complaint to delete remaining untried claims, thereby creating a final judgment for appellate review.
• United States v. The Residence of Nicholas Furina
  707 F.2d 82· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of motions for return of property under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) and for disclosure of a supporting affidavit is not a final, appealable order when tied to an ongoing grand jury investigation.
• Spartacus, Inc. v. Borough OF McKEES Rocks
  694 F.2d 947· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• State OF Ariz. v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y
  643 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the maximum reimbursement schedules in question cannot be branded per se violations of the Sherman Act without more experience and evidence of their effects on competition.
• Beukema's Petroleum Co. v. Admiral Petroleum Co.
  613 F.2d 626· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction must be entered on a separate document to be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 and 65(c).
• United States v. Commonwealth OF Va. & Harold W. Burgess
  569 F.2d 1300· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order granting preliminary relief from the suspension of LEAA funding was an appealable injunction and that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d).
• Anderson v. United States
  520 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to stay proceedings in the district court, which sought to await permission from a bankruptcy court to sue a former trustee, is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying defense is legal in nature.
• Local Union 1888 OF the Am. Fed'n OF State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. The City OF Jackson
  473 F.2d 1028· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dismissal orders for the federal defendants were not immediately appealable as interlocutory orders.
• The Robert Stigwood Grp. Ltd. v. Lon Hurwitz
  462 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction is moot because the performances have concluded and there is no reasonable expectation of repetition, and the appeal from the dismissal of claims against some defendants is not yet appealable.
• Aberle Hosiery Co. v. Am. Arb. Ass'n & Speizman Indus.
  461 F.2d 1005· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order appealed from is interlocutory and does not decide the issue of arbitrability.
• Switzerland Cheese Ass'n, Inc. v. E. Horne's Mkt., Inc.
  351 F.2d 552· 1st Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an interlocutory denial of a permanent injunction is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. del Valle
  328 F.2d 885· 1st Cir.· 1964-03-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked the authority to appoint a monitor to supervise a union election absent specific statutory authorization or demonstrated need.
• Comfort Equip. Co. v. Steckler
  212 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-20 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  Mandamus is an inappropriate remedy to review a trial court's venue determination prior to a final adjudication on the merits.
• The Original Great Am. Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cookies
  970 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, disagreeing with the majority's reversal.
• Zimmerman v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  712 F.2d 55· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 9×
  The Bankruptcy Reform Act impliedly modifies the Arbitration Act, granting bankruptcy judges discretion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, and this discretion was not abused in this case.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Anchor Hocking Corp. v. ST. JOE Container Co.
  687 F.2d 52· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the release of certain grand jury transcripts to opt-out plaintiffs, as the need for disclosure outweighed the need for secrecy.