53 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 511 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
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.
-
An order vacating the appointment of a receiver is interlocutory and not appealable under the final-judgment rule or statutory exceptions.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
Interlocutory orders granting or denying stays of arbitration are appealable by right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
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.
-
604 F.2d 1005·
7th Cir.·
1979-08-07
·cited 4×
The court held that an order compelling a non-party state official to disclose state grand jury transcripts is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and the appeal is not moot.
-
The court held that the interlocutory order denying a petition to conduct voir dire of grand jurors is not immediately appealable.
-
The court held that the district court exceeded its judicial power by issuing a discovery sanctions order that improperly limited the EEOC's evidence, and therefore issued a writ of mandamus to withdraw the order.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class action certification because the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof, particularly regarding the adequacy of representation and the failure to brief key issues.
-
581 F.2d 565·
6th Cir.·
1977-12-02
·cited 4×
The court held that petitions for mandamus or prohibition cannot be used as a substitute for a readily available appeal procedure, but treated the matter as an expedited appeal due to the significant issues involved.
-
The denial of a motion to stay condemnation proceedings is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay was not sought to advance an equitable defense.
-
538 F.2d 1387·
9th Cir.·
1976-07-09
·cited 4×
The court held that the order quashing service of process was not a final order and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor did it meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal.
-
The court held that the order under appeal, while not a traditional injunction, was appealable under the collateral order doctrine as it required significant expenditure and addressed a novel issue.
-
The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order, under the circumstances, was appealable as a denial of a preliminary injunction, but affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
-
The court held that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the interpleader action and validly exercised nationwide process under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 for an in rem action concerning personal property.
-
The court held that both orders constituted interlocutory injunctions, granting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and affirmed the district court's decisions.
-
The court held that loading MAI software into RAM constitutes copyright infringement and that soliciting MAI customers using information from MAI's customer database constitutes trade secret misappropriation.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the sale of products by a distributor.
-
A temporary restraining order, even if labeled as such and extended by agreement, is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The district court's order compelling arbitration of one claim and staying others is affirmed in part and remanded in part. The Supreme Court's decision in Byrd mandates arbitration of arbitrable claims, rejecting the 'intertwining doctrine'.
-
The court held that a district court judge cannot issue an injunction that contradicts a prior, unreviewable remand order by another judge in the same court.
-
The court held that the substitution of a bond for a mechanic's lien did not fundamentally alter the nature of the state court's in rem foreclosure action, thus the federal court could not enjoin the state proceedings.
-
998 F.2d 699·
9th Cir.·
1993-07-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the Forest Service's adoption of the Interagency Scientific Committee's Report as its spotted owl management plan violated NEPA and NFMA due to inadequate consideration of alternatives, intervening scientific information, and impacts on other species. The cour
-
Orders imposing a resulting trust and requiring turnover of property in a post-judgment supplementary proceeding are appealable as injunctions, and the trial court did not err in granting relief without a formal summary judgment motion when no genuine issues of material fact exis
-
The court held that the district court erred by applying a contract theory to a claim that sounded in common law duty of confidentiality, thus vacating the preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of the district court's order extending the October 1986 Order, as the extension did not technically continue an injunction and was a procedural step.
-
The denial of a motion to dismiss a pretrial restraining order issued under RICO is an immediately appealable interlocutory order, and the order itself was not an impermissible prior restraint or overbroad.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's misrepresentations, and that pendent appellate jurisdiction did not extend to reviewing the summary judgment ruling.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's consolidation of two cases, one seeking enforcement of an arbitration award and the other alleging fraud, did not constitute a final appealable order.
-
The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the injunction itself was overly broad and not supported by the findings of vexatious conduct.
-
The court held that interlocutory orders restraining asset transfers and appointing a receiver, issued in the context of civil contempt proceedings, were appealable as modifications of a preliminary injunction and were a proper exercise of the district court's equitable discretio
-
An interlocutory order enjoining a party from prosecuting a related action in another district court is not an immediately appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it does not grant or protect the substantive relief sought by the claimant.
-
An order denying an application for an ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) is immediately appealable as a denial of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court's refusal to grant such an order in this case was an abuse of discretion.
-
940 F.2d 996·
6th Cir.·
1991-08-06
·cited 2×
The court held that an arbitration clause containing an express exemption for federal securities claims must be enforced according to its plain language, and that plaintiffs did not waive their right to appeal by submitting to arbitration under court order.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion, but dismissed the appeal of the denial of permanent injunctive relief due to lack of a final judgment.
-
The court held that a district court cannot unilaterally modify the terms of a consent decree agreed upon by the parties, as this constitutes an abuse of authority.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
-
The Court holds that Scientology has standing to sue and that Clearwater Ordinance 3479-84 is constitutional. The Court grants Scientology's motion for partial summary judgment on standing but denies it on other issues, while denying Clearwater's motion on standing but granting i
-
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of an appealable order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or that the order could only be effectively challenged by immediate appeal.
-
An order confirming an arbitration award that mandates employee reinstatement is an appealable injunction, even if other relief remains pending before the arbitrator. The district court retains jurisdiction to consider contempt proceedings while the appeal is pending.
-
The court holds it lacks jurisdiction to review orders denying disqualification and staying proceedings, but affirms the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
-
The court held that the union had standing to challenge the district court's order and that the order was injunctive in nature, not a consent decree. The court reversed the denial of the union's motion to vacate and remanded for a hearing.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal from the denial of the third motion for preliminary injunction was untimely, as the right of appeal arose from the earlier denial of the second motion.
-
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighed the harm to the defendant.
-
An order staying execution of a federal TILA judgment to permit a state court to decide a claim that might be set off is appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson rule as an interlocutory order relating to an injunction.
-
The court affirmed the district court's allocation of burdens of proof and production, but remanded the Overton claim for further proceedings.
-
The court held that Executive Order 7509 established a limited priority for wildlife, not an absolute one, and that the 1976 Amendments did not revoke this priority scheme but did change the governing statute to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.