28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)

53 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 511 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Trs. of the Carpenters Health & Welf. Tr. Fund v. Universal Constr. Servs.
  440 F.2d 765· S.D. Fla.· 1988-08-25 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the defendant employer remained bound by the collective bargaining agreement and its renewals, including fringe benefit obligations, due to its failure to provide timely notice of termination.
• Diskin v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc.
  836 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  A stay order pending arbitration is appealable if the underlying suit is legal in nature, and under New York law, an arbitration clause is a material addition requiring express assent, which was not present here.
• Lyons Plastering & Stucco v. Seaboard Sur. Co.
  825 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The denial of a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying action is one at law and the stay was sought to determine an equitable defense or counterclaim.
• Norco Prods., Inc. v. Mecca Dev., Inc.
  821 F.2d 644· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  An interlocutory order that effectively denies an injunction is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only if it causes serious, irreparable consequences that can only be challenged by immediate appeal.
• Merit Stainless Steel, Inc. v. Nippon Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.
  818 F.2d 532· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an order staying litigation pending arbitration is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying action is predominantly equitable in nature.
• Sims Varner & Assocs., Inc. v. Blanchard
  794 F.2d 1123· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that it had interlocutory jurisdiction over certain portions of the district court's orders denying injunctive relief, but affirmed those denials due to the contractor's substantial completion of the work and the plaintiff's delay in seeking equitable relief.
• Twp. of Franklin Sewerage Auth. v. Middlesex Cnty. Utils. Auth. v. The State OF NEW Jersey
  787 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction is limited to reviewing the denial itself, not the original injunction, and requires a showing of changed circumstances.
• NUI Corp. v. Irwin I. Kimmelman
  765 F.2d 399· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment declaring a New Jersey statute unconstitutional and vacating an election, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the statute and the election outcome.
• Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.
  709 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-17
  The court held that an order denying a pre-trial motion to enforce a forum selection clause is reviewable as a collaterally final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the denial of a forum non conveniens claim is not collaterally final. The court also found that it had discreti
• Garcia v. United States
  680 F.2d 29· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that a federal employee seeking an injunction against discharge must exhaust administrative remedies and meet the stringent requirements of Sampson v. Murray, which Garcia failed to do.
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 645· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
• Melanson v. John J. Duane Co., Inc.
  605 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-20
  The court held that a prolonged temporary restraining order should be treated as a preliminary injunction for appeal purposes and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dissolve the injunction at that time.
• Tapley v. Lockwood Green Eng'rs, Inc.
  502 F.2d 559· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-16
  The court held that the order limiting damages was not immediately appealable as a collateral order because substantial rights would not be irreparably lost by delaying review.
• Marcel Dekker, Inc. v. Jean-Pierre Anselme
  468 F.2d 607· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-12 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1)
  The court held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment, even if it resolves some issues on the merits, is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if genuine issues of material fact remain on other claims.