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 interlocutory orders granting writs of attachment, finding civil contempt, and imposing fines for civil contempt are generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1), absent specific circumstances not present here.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive and declaratory relief prior to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as the jurisdictional question was not free from doubt and the potential injury did not constitute irreparable harm
-
The court held that a motion to transfer a federal action to another federal court is distinguishable from a motion to dismiss in favor of a foreign court.
-
-
The court held that the district court's finding of contempt for violating a consent decree was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as a modification of the injunction, and that the finding that CDI's new monitor was substantially similar to the enjoined monitor was not clear
-
An order denying a stay is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying suit is a mixed law-equity action where equitable relief is more than merely incidental to legal relief.
-
A district court's stay order pending administrative proceedings is not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but may be reviewed via writ of mandamus if the district court clearly abused its discretion.
-
The court held that the district court orders were final for appeal and that the executive order and its regulations were validly promulgated and authorized. However, the court remanded for further findings on the reasonableness of the searches under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the court has appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order, which effectively denied all relief for de jure segregation.
-
The court held that a stay pending arbitration is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying action involves equitable claims.
-
The court held that an order effectively denying injunctive relief on one count of a multi-count complaint, where other counts seek different injunctive relief on distinct legal theories, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
An agreement to arbitrate claims arising under federal antitrust laws is not enforceable, even if the parties agreed to arbitrate such claims after a dispute arose.
-
The court held that an order granting a stay pending arbitration in an action that sounds in equity is not appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it appealable under § 1292(a)(1) as an interlocutory injunction in an action at law.
-
-
Orders compelling arbitration in an ongoing lawsuit are interlocutory and not immediately appealable as final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
The court held that the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, which allows interlocutory appeals of equitable stays in suits at law, is still authoritative despite its age and perceived flaws. The court reluctantly affirmed its continued application.
-
663 F.2d 882·
9th Cir.·
1981-12-10
·cited 35×
The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper, the Service violated regulations by negotiating with a bidder after rejecting all proposals, requiring a resolicitation.
-
A default judgment against some joint tortfeasors cannot be entered while liability for others remains undecided, as this would improperly sever a single claim.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the civil rights counterclaim, but reversed the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from hearing the constitutional challenges to the Georgia drug paraphernalia statutes, as the Pullman factors for abstention were not met.
-
The court held that while the appellee had common law rights to use the trademark, the appellant's incontestable registration could not be cancelled absent fraudulent procurement, and both parties are entitled to concurrent use of the mark with proper source identification.
-
The court held that the district court's stay order was appealable and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further consideration in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions.
-
The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as plaintiffs failed to show a violation of law or constitutional rights regarding highway route selection, but reversed the dismissal of the Mayor as a party defendant.
-
The court followed precedent allowing a party to assert arbitration rights late, despite prior participation in litigation.
-
The dissenting judge would remand for an order determining that the defendant's new product (D3) does not violate the injunctive provisions of the consent decree.
-
667 F.2d 477·
5th Cir.·
1982-02-08
·cited 32×
An order indefinitely staying a civil trial until a prisoner plaintiff is released from incarceration is appealable under the 'death knell' doctrine, and such a stay is an abuse of discretion if indefinite and without justification.
-
The Court held that the district court's order abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction and directing the parties to proceed before the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (MMB) was appealable as a final order. The Court reversed the district court's decision, finding that
-
The court held that the district court's order approving a tender of back pay and solicitation of releases from class members is not an appealable order under either 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the appeals of Bullock and Brisson must be dismissed for failure to sign the notice of appeal, and Scarrella's appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the order was not final under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and did not contract the scope of injunctive re
-
The court held that an order denying a stay of a federal action pending arbitration is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying action is primarily equitable in nature.
-
The court held that the jury's determination that the parties did not intend to incorporate the arbitration clause into the 1980 purchase order was not irrational and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration.
-
The court agrees with the majority's analysis of personal jurisdiction issues.
-
The court held that the contract contained an implied covenant for Shoshone to stay in business for the duration of the contract, so long as its members have a need for power, and that the district court's denial of a permanent injunction should be vacated and set aside.
-
The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not apply to requests for injunctions that might allow state or local governments to collect additional taxes, and that third parties not bound by a consent decree may litigate their claims in state court.
-
The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and exercised pendent jurisdiction over related summary judgment issues. The grant of partial summary judgment and dissolution of a preliminary restraint were vacated, while the
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a motion to remand a case to state court.
-
The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, and an appeal of that denial does not bring up for review prior interlocutory orders dismissing a conspiracy claim and denying class certification.
-
The court held that the district court exceeded its authority by enjoining FDA regulatory action and dissolving prior seizures without adjudicating the merits, and that the remand order was appealable as a collateral order.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification because the proposed plaintiff class was not adequately defined or ascertainable, and the attempt to certify a defendant class raised due process concerns.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the University had not shown a strong probability of success on the merits.
-
The court held that an indefinite continuance of a preliminary injunction hearing is appealable as a refusal of an injunction, and that dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a final, appealable order. The court also found that the cases were not moot despite the strike endin
-
An order granting limited intervention to the EEOC, restricting it to the issue of retaliation, is not appealable because it is neither a final order nor an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
-
A contractual arbitration clause is enforceable in an action brought on a statutory payment bond, and a district court's denial of a stay pending arbitration is appealable.
-
The court held that the district court's order limiting the scope of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the order denying a separate trial of a counterclaim is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action would have been cognizable in equity.
-
The court held that the Fifth Circuit lacked the statutory power to order a transfer of venue, and therefore the Oklahoma district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the restraining order and hold appellants in contempt.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction because Tri-State demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, a public interest favoring the injunction, and raised serious questions going to t
-
The court held that Metropolitan had standing as a landlord to complain about JWA's failure to assume its lease.
-
The court held that the district court's order granting partial summary judgment and enjoining the university was an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).