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

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia
  922 F.3d 1307· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's summary proceedings in the receivership did not afford the appellants due process by denying them a meaningful opportunity to present their claims and defenses.
• Abish v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Milwaukee
  924 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying the surety's motion for quia timet and exoneration relief, as the order was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory injunction.
• Diamontiney v. Borg
  918 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction or in denying the motion for contempt, as reasonable steps were taken to ensure the inmate's access to the courts.
• The Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. Hantzis
  902 F.2d 1028· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal from an order declining to enjoin the turnover of a law firm's work product to successor counsel.
• Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Levolor Lorentzen, Inc.
  879 F.2d 1165· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's orders regarding the duty to defend were not final and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even with Rule 54(b) certification, because the determination of the pollution exclusion's applicability could alter the duty to defend
• In re Goodman v. Goodman
  873 F.2d 598· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The NLRB has primary jurisdiction to determine successorship issues, and a Chapter 7 discharge does not shield a debtor or their alter ego from liability for pre-petition corporate unfair labor practices.
• Union Nat'l Bank OF Little Rock v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  860 F.2d 847· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate regarding contract modification due to genuine factual disputes over the interpretation of the June 10, 1985 letter, and affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claim.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1481· D.C. Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the March order constituted a new or modified injunction, not merely a contempt finding for violating the July injunction, and thus vacated the contempt judgment.
• Wagner v. Reese H. Taylor, Jr.
  836 F.2d 578· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-24 ·cited 8×
• Conticommodity Servs., Inc. v. Ragan
  826 F.2d 600· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-06 ·cited 8×
  A district court judge exceeded lawful authority by ordering a law firm, against its will, to represent a nominal party when the real party in interest was a bankruptcy trustee in another court.
• Rigaku Corp. v. Ferrofluidics Corp.
  800 F.2d 1115· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to prohibit a party from consulting with a former employee is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Samayoa v. Chicago Bd. OF Educ.
  783 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the dismissal of Count I, which sought a permanent injunction, did not grant jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal because other counts remained for trial and there was no pressing need for immediate review.
• S. Bend Consumers Club, Inc. v. United Consumers Club, Inc.
  742 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's order granting partial summary judgment on the enforceability of a restrictive covenant is not an appealable interlocutory order denying injunctive relief because the appellant failed to demonstrate serious, irreparable consequences and th
• SAN Antonio v. Burlington N., Inc.
  650 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining railroads from implementing a published tariff rate after the Interstate Commerce Commission declined to suspend it.
• Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc.
  606 F.2d 420· 4th Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order refusing to enter a consent decree in a Title VII class action is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as a denial of injunctive relief.
• Taylor v. Sterrett
  600 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court should discontinue its retained jurisdiction and dismiss the case because the original objectives of the lawsuit have been accomplished and state mechanisms now exist to address jail conditions.
• Atkins v. Scott
  597 F.2d 872· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and the case should be tried and decided without further delay.
• United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redev. Co.
  594 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the Frank Group from asserting ownership interests in the Mansion House properties in bankruptcy proceedings, as the properties were not subject to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.
• Brennan v. W. Union Tel. Co.
  561 F.2d 477· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court holds that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permits the Secretary of Labor to extend overtime coverage to employees performing the work of strikers, and the district court properly enjoined future violations and established a framework for back pay.
• Reed v. Rhodes
  549 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal would be permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the district court's order finding intentional segregation and directing remedial plan formulation.
• Munson v. Gilliam
  543 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and federal intervention in state criminal proceedings was unwarran
• Inmates OF SAN Diego Cnty. Jail IN Cell Block 3B & Jason Elliot Roman HI v. Duffy
  528 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of class certification and preliminary injunctive relief for pretrial detainees is appealable and that the district court erred in applying precedent for convicted prisoners and in denying severance.
• In re the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum of Raymond J. Ryan
  430 F.2d 658· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, which also modified the subpoena and required affirmative action in a foreign country, was an appealable interlocutory order.
• Sayers v. Forsyth Bldg. Corp.
  417 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the decision, finding that abstention was not appropriate in this diversity case.
• Formigli Corp. v. Alcar Builders, Inc.
  329 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 8×
  An order staying an action at law pending arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the dispute over whether the arbitration clause covers a total breach claim is itself arbitrable.
• Gust Dahlen v. Kramer Mach. & Eng'g Prods. Co.
  303 F.2d 293· 10th Cir.· 1961-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable because it was an interlocutory order and the prerequisites for an interlocutory appeal were not met, nor was it an order refusing to dissolve an injunction.
• THE DOW Chem. Co. v. Metlon Corp.
  281 F.2d 292· 4th Cir.· 1960-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that venue for patent infringement requires proof of completed acts of infringement within the district, not merely threats or demonstrations insufficient to establish such acts. A defendant does not waive venue by filing a special appearance to contest it, nor is
• In re Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., Inc. v. Laplace Towing Corp.
  964 F.2d 1571· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action and properly stayed state court proceedings related to the limitation of liability action.
• In re Impounded Case (law Firm)
  879 F.2d 1211· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 7×
  The crime-fraud exception applies to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine even when the alleged criminality is solely that of the law firm, but the district court's application of the exception was too broad.
• Admin. Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., Inc. v. Royal Am. Managers, Inc.
  854 F.2d 1272· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration because the motion did not encompass all claims and parties involved in the underlying dispute, thus violating the policy against piecemeal litigation.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Universal Fin.
  760 F.2d 1034· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the investors' motion to lift the receivership stay or to require the receiver to post a bond.
• In re Marine Distribs., Inc. v. Smith
  522 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-05 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction to enjoin payment on irrevocable letters of credit because the bank and the beneficiaries were adverse claimants, and the letters of credit were not property of the bankrupt estate.
• Sherri A.D. v. W.N. Kirby
  975 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the magistrate judge's order directing Sherri's transfer to community housing, affirming that order. However, it declined to hear appeals on other interlocutory matters.
• Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. Bitterolf
  968 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and thus the appeal should be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Manchester Knitted Fashions, Inc. v. Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Indus. Fund
  967 F.2d 688· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the partial summary judgment order was appealable as an injunction, that the Fund waived its venue challenges, and that the withdrawal liability rules were unenforceable.
• Valenti v. Mitchell
  962 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from hearing constitutional claims by parties who were not participants in the prior state supreme court proceedings, even if those proceedings addressed similar issues.
• Sierra Club v. Dep't OF Transp.
  948 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 6×
  A road does not "constructively use" park land under Section 4(f) if the road and park were jointly planned from the outset.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Kerrville BUS Co., Inc.
  925 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 6×
  An order dismissing counterclaims seeking injunctive relief is not an order refusing an injunction for purposes of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the district court specifically denied the injunction, and the collateral order doctrine does not apply if n
• Elizabeth v. Bogosian
  923 F.2d 898· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's orders requiring security and interim distributions were appealable mandatory injunctions and were lawful under Rhode Island law.
• United States v. Roth
  912 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a pretrial order restraining assets under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act is appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• ELI Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  915 F.2d 670· Fed. Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's findings of contempt were deficient and that the prior judgment of infringement and all injunctive orders must be vacated due to the Supreme Court's ruling on the § 271(e)(1) exemption.
• Dick Gregory v. Depte
  896 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the two-can per customer per month sanction as a coercive civil contempt, appealable as an injunction, but vacated the $10.00 per can sanction for lack of evidentiary basis and remanded for clarification of its nature.
• Newsom v. Norris
  888 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
• Showtime/THE Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  881 F.2d 983· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the permanent injunction and in part the grant of summary judgment, holding that the defendants failed to meet the requirements for statutory exemption from liability under the Federal Communications Act.
• Johnson v. State OF Tex.
  878 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 6×
  An order holding a § 1983 civil rights suit in abeyance pending exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• The Continuum Co., Inc. v. Incepts, Inc.
  873 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court continued the stay of the district court's order increasing the bond and dissolving the injunction, pending appeal.
• Hamilton v. Honorable Bob W. Robertson
  854 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order enjoining a party from filing new lawsuits within the same district court, without leave, is not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  846 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's remand order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Manning v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
  833 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration, finding that the appellants failed to present an adequate basis to oppose or vacate the order despite procedural irregularities.
• Theis v. Smith
  827 F.2d 260· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order dismissing the judge was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for a collateral order appeal.