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 order compelling arbitration was not appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine because the underlying action was predominantly legal in nature, and that the defendants could not invoke the arbitration agreement as they were not parties to it and not in
-
The court held that the district court's order terminating the student code of conduct and community relations program was procedurally deficient due to lack of notice and must be vacated.
-
The court held that while state law claims regarding pollution and nuisances are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resolve issues pending before it before a court proceeds.
-
The court affirmed the district court's findings of individual constructive discharge and class-wide discrimination, but reversed the awards for back pay and attorney fees due to the trial judge's recusal and subsequent reassignment.
-
The court held that the request for interim payments was not a counterclaim, and therefore the order denying relief was not appealable.
-
The court held that the district court's order dismissing writs of attachment, garnishment, and seizure, conditioned on arbitration and posting security, was not a final judgment and therefore dismissed the appeal.
-
An order staying state court proceedings after removal is not an appealable interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because removal automatically effects a stay and the order is merely declaratory of existing law.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the district court's summary judgment order, while ruling on the merits of one claim, did not resolve all issues and the appellant failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm from delaying r
-
A district court's temporary restraining order extending a tender offer's proration date is improper and appealable if it functions as a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that the interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it did not present serious, irreparable consequences and could be reviewed upon final judgment.
-
The court held that plaintiffs have standing to seek judicial review of the Secretary's regulation adequacy and that dismissal of the claim for failure to enforce statutory duties was inappropriate.
-
The district court did not err in issuing an injunction to prevent state courts from interfering with its jurisdiction over property in foreclosure proceedings.
-
A county cannot enforce its zoning and building codes against Indian trust property within a reservation, as Public Law 280 does not grant such jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the district court's abstention order, which stayed proceedings pending state court determination of state law issues, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as a denial of a temporary injunction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff veteran was entitled to the seniority status he would have enjoyed had he not entered military service, even if that status resulted from a discretionary managerial decision that occurred during his absence.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction and denying a stay or transfer, as exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA).
-
The court held that an order denying a motion to reconsider a denial of class certification is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a stay pending arbitration is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only if the underlying action was historically at law and the stay was sought to resolve an equitable defense, and that the equitable claims he
-
The court held that the appeal was not moot, timely, and that a Rule 54(b) certificate was not required for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief due to changed circumstances and law.
-
The court held that cross claims arising from the same occurrence as the original interpleader action are permissible under Rule 13(g) and should be liberally applied.
-
An order vacating an arbitration award is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not have the practical effect of refusing or dissolving an injunction.
-
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court's order, which required an accounting for damages and fees, was not a final order, and the district court's affirmation of that order was therefore also not final or appealable under the relevant st
-
The court held that an order applying the automatic stay to a governmental action to enforce its police or regulatory power is an appealable final order, and that the Department of Labor's administrative action to enforce the Service Contract Act was exempt from the automatic sta
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that denial of a consent decree providing injunctive relief is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it has serious consequences, and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to approve a comprehensive settlement agreement in a public housing
-
Orders granting stays pending arbitration or compelling arbitration are not ordinarily appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as injunctions, even if amended to expedite the process, absent extraordinary circumstances of irreparable harm.
-
The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff has been transferred to another prison and there is no indication he is likely to be returned to the original prison.
-
The court held that the EPA's new suit for access to Fisher's land under CERCLA was not barred by a prior consent decree, and the district court properly granted equitable relief.
-
The court held that the 1984 agreement was not a settlement agreement or consent decree, and therefore the district court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a trial.
-
The court held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, as such orders are not automatically appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) after the repudiation of the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine.
-
The court held that a plaintiff who amends their complaint under court order after removal does not waive their right to appeal the denial of a motion to remand, and that the University's third-party complaint against the NCAA did not present a federal question, making removal im
-
An order directing state officials to submit a plan for achieving compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it contains additional, appealable injunctive relief or specifies the
-
The court held that a denial of interim attorney's fees is not an appealable final order because it is neither conclusive nor effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
-
The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to stay or refer issues to the Interstate Commerce Commission is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order staying proceedings pending arbitration, as such an order is not a final decision and does not meet the criteria for the collateral-order doctrine or permissive appeal.
-
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order to arbitrate was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the district court's failure to make findings of fact or conclusions of law necessitates a remand for further proceedings.
-
The court held that an order denying class certification, even if based on lack of standing for injunctive relief, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it has the practical effect of denying an injunction and causes serious, irreparable harm that can
-
The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's stay order and that the claims against individual union members were properly dismissed. The court also held that the arbitrability of the dispute must be decided by the court, not an arbitrator.
-
The court held that an order granting a writ of habeas corpus on some claims, but not all, is not a final appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to stay proceedings because the order was not an interlocutory order refusing an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
An appellate court has jurisdiction to permit a plaintiff to amend their complaint to delete remaining untried claims, thereby creating a final judgment for appellate review.
-
The court held that the denial of motions for return of property under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) and for disclosure of a supporting affidavit is not a final, appealable order when tied to an ongoing grand jury investigation.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
-
The court held that the maximum reimbursement schedules in question cannot be branded per se violations of the Sherman Act without more experience and evidence of their effects on competition.
-
The court held that a preliminary injunction must be entered on a separate document to be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 and 65(c).
-
The court held that the district court's order granting preliminary relief from the suspension of LEAA funding was an appealable injunction and that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d).
-
The court held that an order denying a motion to stay proceedings in the district court, which sought to await permission from a bankruptcy court to sue a former trustee, is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying defense is legal in nature.
-
The court held that the dismissal orders for the federal defendants were not immediately appealable as interlocutory orders.
-
The court held that the appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction is moot because the performances have concluded and there is no reasonable expectation of repetition, and the appeal from the dismissal of claims against some defendants is not yet appealable.