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

• Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Shell OIL Co.
  820 F.2d 898· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's refusal to stay proceedings was premature and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
• Kareem Faheem-El v. Klincar
  814 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Illinois' blanket denial of bail to arrested parole violators pending their final revocation hearing likely violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Mayacamas Corp. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
  806 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
  804 F.2d 348· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by conditioning approval of a consent decree on a payment to a third party (City of Cleveland) that lacked a legal basis for its claim.
• Chaparral Commc'ns, Inc. v. Boman Indus., Inc.
  798 F.2d 456· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appeal from a partial summary judgment is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the district court was alerted that its ruling would have the practical effect of denying injunctive relief and that such denial would cause serious, ir
• United States v. L.J. Garner and Tommie N. Garner
  749 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order barring foreclosure until the government considered refinancing under new regulations was not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• United States v. Wade
  713 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order dismissing claims against non-negligent, past off-site generators of hazardous waste was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Gave Shipping Co., S.A. v. In action for exoneration from or limitation of liability
  634 F.2d 1156· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order staying an indemnity claim in an admiralty case pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action is not an 'action at law' for purposes of the Enelow-Ettelson rule.
• Plantamura v. Mayor Joseph Cipolla
  617 F.2d 344· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a partial summary judgment order dismissing some defendants from a civil rights suit is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the remaining defendant can still provide the full injunctive relief sought.
• Williams v. ST. Louis Diecasting Corp.
  611 F.2d 1223· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's Rule 54(b) certification was improper for a single bifurcated claim, but appellate jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) for the injunctive relief granted.
• United States v. Am. Inst. OF Real Est. Appraisers OF the Nat'l Ass'n OF Realtors
  590 F.2d 242· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order approving a settlement is not an injunction within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and therefore, an appeal from such an order must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Clark v. Lomas & Nettleton Fin. Corp.
  581 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the order tentatively approving a settlement is not an appealable order.
• Johnson v. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co.
  558 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying class certification is generally not appealable unless it sounds the death knell of the action, falls under the collateral order doctrine, or narrows injunctive relief, none of which applied here. The court also held that while the EEOC is not
• In re W. F. Hurley, Inc. v. Martrac Farms, Inc.
  553 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 6×
  A Chapter X bankruptcy court may enjoin proceedings in another court involving the Chapter X debtor or trustee to protect its jurisdiction, but enjoining another court itself, rather than the litigants, is an extraordinary measure to be used only in exigent circumstances and is g
• Williams v. Wallace Silversmiths, Inc.
  566 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 6×
  An order denying class certification is interlocutory and generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it effectively denies an injunction.
• Jones v. Pac. Intermountain Express
  536 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the moving party did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting the analysis. The matter is remanded for trial.
• J. M. Huber & Co. v. The M/V Plym
  468 F.2d 166· 4th Cir.· 1972-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a motion to stay an admiralty action pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Spencer v. Kugler
  454 F.2d 839· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the single district judge did not err in dismissing Count One because the matter had already been adjudicated by a three-judge court, and the relief sought was injunctive in nature, not purely declaratory.
• Petition of World Tradeways Shipping, Ltd.
  373 F.2d 860· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-15 ·cited 6×
  An order extending the time for filing claims in a limitation proceeding is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Alloyd Gen. Corp. v. Bldg. Leasing Corp.
  361 F.2d 359· 1st Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trust mortgage constituted an assignment for the benefit of creditors as a matter of law, breaching the lease condition and entitling the lessor to terminate the lease.
• Heron v. City & Cnty. OF Denver
  317 F.2d 309· 10th Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and in finding no irreparable damage, thus properly denying injunctive relief.
• Jorgensen Bros. v. Commerce-Pacific, Inc.
  294 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1961-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court should not consider this an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or denying an injunction, as the dismissal was based on venue.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  238 F.2d 654· 1st Cir.· 1956-12-03 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1)
  The court held that the orders appealed from were not final or appealable interlocutory orders, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Ime Archibong Etuk v. Slattery
  936 F.2d 1433· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court's order regarding the adequacy of temporary documentation for LPRs was properly appealable as an injunction, and that the plaintiff class had standing and their claims were not moot.
• Feller v. Brock
  802 F.2d 722· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the West Virginia district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that conflicted with a prior, binding injunction from the District of Columbia, and that intervention as of right should have been granted.
• The Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Md. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Md.
  748 F.2d 879· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) to grant a preliminary injunction and did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
• Hooks v. Wainwright
  536 F. Supp. 1330· M.D. Fla.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state's proposed law library system alone is insufficient to guarantee indigent inmates meaningful access to the courts, and that some form of attorney assistance is constitutionally required.
• OKC Corp. v. Williams
  614 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the partial summary judgment for the SEC was not erroneously entered because there were no genuine issues of disputed fact concerning SEC participation in the alleged private party taking of the report.
• Carroll v. Am. Fed'n OF Musicians OF the United States & Canada
  310 F.2d 325· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-21 ·cited 5×
• United States v. Paulo Santtini
  963 F.2d 585· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court granted the writ of prohibition, finding the district court order suspending an arrest warrant was not immediately appealable and constituted a usurpation of power.
• Navarro-Ayala v. Hernandez-Colon
  956 F.2d 348· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's orders requiring parties to submit briefs and the Master to conduct investigations were not final and thus not immediately appealable.
• Rolo v. Gen. Dev. Corp.
  949 F.2d 695· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order staying the class action pending other proceedings but had jurisdiction over the order effectively denying a preliminary injunction, which was an abuse of discretion.
• Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Sec., L.P.
  920 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was appealable and that the district court erred in its materiality determination, remanding for further proceedings on permanent relief.
• Project B.A.S.I.C. v. O'Rourke
  907 F.2d 1242· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1988 amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 1437p does not apply to demolitions approved before its effective date, but remanded for consideration of alternative legal grounds for the district court's time schedule order.
• Inmates OF the Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Cyril H. Wecht
  874 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's order imposing a contempt sanction and the order closing the old jail facility, finding both were appropriate remedies for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
• Associated Bus. Tel. Sys. Corp. v. Greater Cap. Corp.
  861 F.2d 793· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order directing repossession of the telephone system was a reviewable preliminary injunction, but the order directing payment of funds was not appealable. The denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant wa
• Crotty v. City OF Chicago Heights
  857 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's stay order, which permitted discovery on the RICO claim, was not a final order and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Hanna Boys Ctr. v. Miller
  853 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a prior panel's order implicitly determining the lack of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes the law of the case, precluding the current appeal on that issue.
• Hitachi Zosen Clearing, Inc. v. Tek-Matik, Inc.
  846 F.2d 27· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 4×
  An order requiring the posting of security as a condition to granting a preliminary injunction is not an immediately appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) nor under the collateral order doctrine.
• Agcaoili v. Gustafson
  844 F.2d 620· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by staying the proceedings and that the INS has a mandatory duty under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 to process naturalization applications for Filipino veterans.
• Volvo N. Am. Corp. v. Men's Int'l Prof'l Tennis Council
  839 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of antitrust claims seeking injunctive relief, without leave to replead, is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it has the practical effect of refusing an injunction and causes serious, irreparable harm that can only be ch
• B & R Assocs. v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc.
  835 F.2d 526· 4th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that when parties agree to a broadly worded arbitration clause, the arbitrator, not the court, should decide the scope of that clause.
• Warren v. Ned A. Bergeron
  831 F.2d 101· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 4×
  An order vacating the appointment of a receiver is interlocutory and not appealable under the final-judgment rule or statutory exceptions.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Aurora Equip. Co.
  830 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order remanding a case to an arbitrator for further proceedings, clarification, or determination of monetary relief is not a final order and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Wilson v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs. Appeal of Margaret M. Heckler
  796 F.2d 36· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Secretary's use of certain severity regulations, but vacated a portion of the injunction for overbreadth.
• Aurora Bancshares Corp. & Ralph L. Egeland v. Weston
  777 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of a preliminary injunction request, based on discovery violations and unclean hands, is an appealable interlocutory order, and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal.
• The Populist Party v. Herschler
  746 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding Wyoming's ballot access requirements for independent candidates and new political parties, thus denying their motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• N. Supply Co. v. Greater Dev. & Servs. Corp.
  728 F.2d 363· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 4×
  Interlocutory orders granting or denying stays of arbitration are appealable by right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Ferndale
  616 F.2d 895· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Ferndale School District's decisions to build the Grant School and define its attendance boundaries were clearly erroneous and constituted intentional segregation with continuing segregative effects.
• In re Federal Grand Jury Investigation of Robert H. Fendler Robert H. Fendler v. United States
  597 F.2d 1314· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the interlocutory order denying a petition to conduct voir dire of grand jurors is not immediately appealable.