53 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 511 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
An order denying a stay of litigation pending arbitration is not appealable as a final decision or collateral order if the underlying action is equitable in nature.
-
The court reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction because the district judge's conduct and remarks during the hearing demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality, requiring remand to a different judge.
-
The denial of class certification is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not directly deny injunctive relief and remains reviewable after final judgment. A named plaintiff may still have standing to appeal such a denial, even after receiving
-
The court held that the trial court erred in vacating its order certifying the suit as a class action and establishing guidelines for probable cause hearings, as the claims were not moot.
-
The court held that an appeal from an order denying dissolution of a preliminary injunction is rendered moot and will be dismissed if a final decree has since been entered that makes the preliminary injunction permanent.
-
The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable, but an order denying a motion to stay is appealable if the underlying action could have been brought at law and the stay sought an equitable defense. The court reversed the denial of the stay, remanding f
-
An order granting partial summary judgment for specific performance of a collateral deposit provision in an indemnity agreement is not a final decision and is not appealable as an injunction.
-
The court held that an order staying an antitrust action pending administrative review by the Civil Aeronautics Board is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court abused its discretion by certifying a partial summary judgment order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) without providing adequate reasoning. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
-
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a restraining order against the United States when the United States had not been served with process and had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
-
The court held that § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claims and civil RICO claims are subject to arbitration under a margin agreement, even if the enforcing parties were not signatories to the agreement. The court also held that the order compelling arbitration was appealable.
-
The court held that West's arrangement of cases in its National Reporter System publications is copyrightable, and MDC's proposed 'star pagination' feature infringes upon that copyright.
-
An order granting a stay of judicial proceedings pending arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying cause of action is legal, and claims of rescission of the entire contract, rather than the arbitration clause itself, are for the arbitrator to decide
-
The court held that the October 11 judgment was not a final appealable order, thus res judicata did not bar consideration of the due process claims. It further held that pre-reduction due process procedures were not constitutionally required for supplementary COLA benefits, as th
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order for Suit 1 and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims in Suit 2, finding no federal jurisdiction and proper abstention.
-
The court held that a trial court must consider the broad remedial purposes of Title VII and liberally interpret Rule 23 when determining class certification, reversing the denial of certification.
-
The court held that General Tire committed fraud on the Patent Office by failing to disclose material experimental data, rendering the Frost patent invalid as to flexible polyether urethane foams.
-
An order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it appealable under § 1292(a)(1) if the stay was not sought to determine an equitable defense or counterclaim.
-
The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction limiting picketing, the absolute prohibition on uttering any sounds was an abuse of discretion and must be modified to allow non-violent, non-threatening speech.
-
The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege or demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory minimum, and also failed to identify a specific Act of Congress for the civil rights claim.
-
The court held that many of the appeals filed were not appealable as they were not final orders or did not fall under exceptions for interlocutory appeals, while others were permitted to proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's distribution of its computer chess game without copyright notice on the ROM or game itself constituted publication, forfeiting copyright protection under the 1909 Act, and that section 21 did not excuse the complete omission of notice.
-
The court held that the National Agreement's arbitration provision prevails over the Local Agreement's exceptions, and that jurisdictional disputes must be resolved by the National Joint Board, not an arbitrator.
-
A law firm's state law retaining lien on a failed bank's files is superseded by FIRREA's exclusive claims procedure, and thus cannot be used to circumvent that process or demand immediate payment.
-
The court held that an order compelling arbitration and retaining jurisdiction is not immediately appealable as a final judgment, injunction, or collateral order.
-
The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the order staying the action pending arbitration, and that the order should be affirmed because the party is bound by NASD arbitration rules and the forum selection clause did not waive arbitration rights.
-
An employer's meetings with employees to discuss terms and conditions of employment, even if framed as addressing safety or comfort, can constitute an unfair labor practice if they undermine the union's role as exclusive bargaining representative. However, expressions of anti-uni
-
The court held that prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that defamation coupled with discharge can state a § 1983 claim for deprivation of a liberty interest. However, pendant state law claims are not appealable without proper certification.
-
The court held that the district court's inaction did not constitute an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because no injunction was explicitly refused and no immediate irreparable harm would result from the delay. The court also denied the writ of mandamus.
-
The court reversed the district court's order modifying the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary factors for its issuance.
-
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court's order allowing intervention but barring new claims is not a final order and does not constitute an appealable denial of injunctive relief, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the dismissal of an alleged class action where the individual claim of the class representative had become moot and the class had not been properly certified by the district court.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dissolve an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding because the potential for multiple claims, including Mrs. Fiers' claim and Sioux City's indemnity claim, meant it was not a cl
-
A party is bound by the terms of a written contract signed by its agent, even if the agent did not read all the terms, absent fraud or misrepresentation.
-
425 F.2d 959·
2d Cir.·
1970-01-22
·cited 18×
A challenge to the confiscatory nature of a state administrative order regarding commission rates presents a substantial constitutional issue requiring a three-judge court.
-
An order granting a stay of an admiralty proceeding pending arbitration is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the trial court erred in allowing cross-libels for abuse of process and staying the seamen's wage actions, as this violated the statutory policy of free access for seamen's wage claims.
-
The court held that an order compelling payment of pension contributions pending resolution of a dispute, issued under statutory authority, is not a preliminary injunction appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless irreparable harm is shown.
-
The court held that while juveniles do not have a constitutional right to rehabilitative treatment, the conditions of their confinement, particularly in isolation, are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Due Process Clause and Eighth Amendment, and may be unconstitutional if
-
The court held that a temporary restraining order extended indefinitely by consent becomes appealable as a preliminary injunction, and that a civil contempt order arising from such an order is also appealable. The court affirmed the finding of contempt against Arthur Treacher's a
-
The court held that the appeal from the denial of unitary status was not moot and that jurisdiction was proper, but the appeal from the order requiring the district to submit plans was moot. The court affirmed the district court's finding of non-unitariness and upheld the interim
-
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
-
The court held that the district court's order striking claims for injunctive relief was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm pending final judgment.
-
The court held that the district court's order refusing to compel federal defendants to investigate discrimination claims was appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that mandamus relief was unavailable.
-
The court held that the district court erred by converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without providing adequate notice and opportunity for the opposing party to present materials.
-
The court held that the district court improperly ordered arbitration and interfered with the collective bargaining process by compelling arbitration after the union had already decided not to pursue the grievance.
-
In a single claim limitation of liability action, a district court must allow claimants to pursue separate actions, subject to the admiralty court's exclusive control over the limitation fund.
-
The court held that the interlocutory injunction was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed it, deferring full review of the merits to an appeal from the final judgment.
-
The court held that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy for the alleged errors, and the denial of class certification is appealable in the ordinary course after final judgment.