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 the district court's order clarifying a prior injunction was not a final decision nor an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the dismissal order is appealable as an interlocutory order denying injunctive relief and vacated the dismissal, remanding for the district court to consider the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating an injunction based on extra-record impressions rather than objective record facts, and that the California action constituted a compulsory counterclaim.
-
The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal, finding most of the orders non-appealable interlocutory decisions.
-
The court held that an injunction improperly allowed an appeal of an otherwise unappealable venue decision, violating the finality rule.
-
The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to refer claims to an arbitrator and denying a motion for a stay.
-
A one-year continuance of an action to enjoin violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act is appealable as an effective denial of an injunction, and the district court erred in not granting the injunction.
-
A federal district court may enjoin a party from prosecuting a simultaneous action in another federal court of co-ordinate jurisdiction when it first obtains jurisdiction of the parties and issues.
-
A district court's denial of leave to assert a permissive counterclaim, even if seeking injunctive relief, is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the trademark registrations were incontestable and the defendant failed to present a valid defense, thus the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm.
-
The court held that the employee's claim that he was denied a right to notice of his appellate rights was deficient because he had actual notice of the rules and the due process clause does not require a state to advise an employee of appellate rights in a termination letter.
-
A defendant's explicit waiver of a motion to compel arbitration is not automatically revived by the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.
-
The court held that the Chicago Transit Authority's advertising system had become a public forum by designation, and its rejection of Planned Parenthood's advertisement was an impermissible content-based restriction.
-
The court held that the district court's orders regarding class definition, remand, and notice were legally correct and appealable interlocutory injunctions.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the partial summary judgment was not certified as final and the denial of the preliminary injunction was not properly before the court.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claim and entering a permanent injunction due to an inadequate factual record regarding the reasonableness of TWA's transfer restrictions on frequent flyer coupons. However, the court affirmed t
-
905 F.2d 1355·
10th Cir.·
1990-06-04
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, setting the bond amount, or denying a motion to transfer venue.
-
The court held that all disputes arising in connection with the distribution contracts, including those labeled as conspiracy, unfair trade practices, tortious interference, conversion, abuse of process, libel, defamation, and injurious falsehood, are subject to arbitration under
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, as it was a nonfinal and nonappealable order.
-
An order denying injunctive relief is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) even if a request for damages remains pending, and a plaintiff whose personal claim is moot at the time of filing cannot represent a class seeking equitable relief.
-
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order enforcing a settlement agreement was not a final decision, nor was it an appealable interlocutory order or collateral order.
-
The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
-
The court held that the order to hold a referendum is not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that mandamus is not appropriate as the City has an adequate remedy through appeal.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering arbitration of certain claims while allowing discovery on antitrust claims, balancing the Federal Arbitration Act with antitrust enforcement policies.
-
The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action and the sought-after defense do not meet the Enelow-Ettelson rule's requirements.
-
The court held that the presence of a third party's registered mark within a composite mark does not automatically defeat the user's common law trademark rights in the composite, and the third party is not a necessary party if it claims no rights in the composite mark.
-
The court held that an order denying a motion to modify an injunction is appealable and that the district court did not err in determining that the settlement agreement was not a contract within the purview of competitive bidding statutes.
-
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the Commissioner could not rescind the agreement based on the taxpayer's removal of papers from a bank vault, as the agreement was not ambiguous and the removal did not violate its terms.
-
The court held that the district court's pretrial management order constituted a preliminary injunction, making it appealable, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the FTC before seeking equitable relief.
-
An order staying proceedings pending arbitration is not appealable if the underlying claim is primarily equitable in nature, even if legal claims are also present.
-
The court held that a single district judge has the power to decide a non-constitutional ground in favor of plaintiffs, even if a constitutional ground exists that might require a three-judge court. However, the majority opinion concluded it was improper for a single judge to rej
-
The court held that the district court's order postponing the effective date of desegregation was not an appealable order, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
-
The court affirmed the district court's remand order and dismissal of the federal action, finding that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was limited to racial equality claims and that appellants failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal injunctive relief.
-
302 F.2d 831·
2d Cir.·
1962-05-03
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver, exceeding its authority, or violating the Fifth Amendment. The court modified the orders to ensure compliance with foreign law and protect potential Fifth Amendment claims.
-
4 F.4th 1200·
11th Cir.·
2021-07-14
·cited 13×
The Eleventh Circuit held that a preliminary injunction in this Prison Litigation Reform Act case expired by operation of law 90 days after entry because the district court failed to enter a permanent injunction following a trial on the merits, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to refer questions to the ICC and to stay proceedings.
-
The court held that interim attorney fees and expert monitor costs awarded without findings on liability are not appealable interlocutorily and must be reversed and remanded. The court also held that a district court cannot impose Rule 11 sanctions for filing an appeal.
-
The court held that the broad arbitration clause in the charter party encompassed the RICO claim and that the district court's denial of discovery sanctions was not a final appealable judgment.
-
An appellate court has the power and duty to impose reasonable time limitations on a district court to resolve cases, especially those involving constitutional rights, to prevent unconscionable delay.
-
The court held that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Secretary of the Interior for air quality regulation on the OCS, precluding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
-
951 F.2d 780·
7th Cir.·
1992-01-03
·cited 12×
An order compelling arbitration in an "embedded proceeding" (where other claims are also pending) is an interlocutory, non-final decision and thus not immediately appealable under the Arbitration Act, even if a Rule 54(b) judgment is entered.
-
An order certifying questions of state law to a state supreme court is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is not sufficiently separate from the merits of the underlying dispute.
-
The court held that the insurance policy required the insurer to pay legal expenses as they were incurred, and that contemporaneous apportionment of these expenses was not feasible given the nature of the underlying claims.
-
The denial of a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver is not directly appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2), but can be reviewed via pendent appellate jurisdiction if inextricably entwined with an appealable order.
-
The court held that a foreign forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was reasonably communicated and enforceable, reversing the lower court's decision.
-
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order, which adopted the findings of a state agency, did not constitute an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as it lacked serious or irreparable consequences.
-
The court affirmed the district court's injunction against ETI for trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference, finding no clear error in factual findings or abuse of discretion in the injunction's length or modification denial.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Pan Am's appeal because the district court's disapproval of the consent decree did not have the practical effect of denying Pan Am injunctive relief, nor did it cause serious or irreparable harm.
-
The court held that Delaware's pre-hearing notice requirements for welfare benefits must be detailed, including calculations and reasons, and that claimants have a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under federal regulations.