53 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 511 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the two-can per customer per month sanction as a coercive civil contempt, appealable as an injunction, but vacated the $10.00 per can sanction for lack of evidentiary basis and remanded for clarification of its nature.
-
The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
-
The court affirmed the permanent injunction and in part the grant of summary judgment, holding that the defendants failed to meet the requirements for statutory exemption from liability under the Federal Communications Act.
-
An order holding a § 1983 civil rights suit in abeyance pending exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
-
The court continued the stay of the district court's order increasing the bond and dissolving the injunction, pending appeal.
-
The court held that an order enjoining a party from filing new lawsuits within the same district court, without leave, is not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the district court's remand order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration, finding that the appellants failed to present an adequate basis to oppose or vacate the order despite procedural irregularities.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order dismissing the judge was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for a collateral order appeal.
-
The court held that the appeal from the district court's refusal to stay proceedings was premature and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that Illinois' blanket denial of bail to arrested parole violators pending their final revocation hearing likely violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by conditioning approval of a consent decree on a payment to a third party (City of Cleveland) that lacked a legal basis for its claim.
-
The court held that an appeal from a partial summary judgment is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the district court was alerted that its ruling would have the practical effect of denying injunctive relief and that such denial would cause serious, ir
-
The court held that the district court's order barring foreclosure until the government considered refinancing under new regulations was not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
The court held that the district court's order dismissing claims against non-negligent, past off-site generators of hazardous waste was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that an order staying an indemnity claim in an admiralty case pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action is not an 'action at law' for purposes of the Enelow-Ettelson rule.
-
The court held that a partial summary judgment order dismissing some defendants from a civil rights suit is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the remaining defendant can still provide the full injunctive relief sought.
-
The court held that the district court's Rule 54(b) certification was improper for a single bifurcated claim, but appellate jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) for the injunctive relief granted.
-
The court held that an order approving a settlement is not an injunction within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and therefore, an appeal from such an order must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the order tentatively approving a settlement is not an appealable order.
-
The court held that an order denying class certification is generally not appealable unless it sounds the death knell of the action, falls under the collateral order doctrine, or narrows injunctive relief, none of which applied here. The court also held that while the EEOC is not
-
A Chapter X bankruptcy court may enjoin proceedings in another court involving the Chapter X debtor or trustee to protect its jurisdiction, but enjoining another court itself, rather than the litigants, is an extraordinary measure to be used only in exigent circumstances and is g
-
An order denying class certification is interlocutory and generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it effectively denies an injunction.
-
The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the moving party did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting the analysis. The matter is remanded for trial.
-
The denial of a motion to stay an admiralty action pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the single district judge did not err in dismissing Count One because the matter had already been adjudicated by a three-judge court, and the relief sought was injunctive in nature, not purely declaratory.
-
390 F.2d 593·
1st Cir.·
1968-03-07
·cited 6×
An order staying proceedings in a district court is not typically an appealable interlocutory decision, and the appellant failed to make an exceptional showing to warrant treating the appeal as a petition for mandamus.
-
An order extending the time for filing claims in a limitation proceeding is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court held that the trust mortgage constituted an assignment for the benefit of creditors as a matter of law, breaching the lease condition and entitling the lessor to terminate the lease.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and in finding no irreparable damage, thus properly denying injunctive relief.
-
The court should not consider this an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or denying an injunction, as the dismissal was based on venue.
-
The court held that the district court's order regarding the adequacy of temporary documentation for LPRs was properly appealable as an injunction, and that the plaintiff class had standing and their claims were not moot.
-
The court held that the West Virginia district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that conflicted with a prior, binding injunction from the District of Columbia, and that intervention as of right should have been granted.
-
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) to grant a preliminary injunction and did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
-
The court held that the state's proposed law library system alone is insufficient to guarantee indigent inmates meaningful access to the courts, and that some form of attorney assistance is constitutionally required.
-
The court held that the partial summary judgment for the SEC was not erroneously entered because there were no genuine issues of disputed fact concerning SEC participation in the alleged private party taking of the report.
-
-
The court granted the writ of prohibition, finding the district court order suspending an arrest warrant was not immediately appealable and constituted a usurpation of power.
-
The court held that the district court's orders requiring parties to submit briefs and the Master to conduct investigations were not final and thus not immediately appealable.
-
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order staying the class action pending other proceedings but had jurisdiction over the order effectively denying a preliminary injunction, which was an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was appealable and that the district court erred in its materiality determination, remanding for further proceedings on permanent relief.
-
The court held that the 1988 amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 1437p does not apply to demolitions approved before its effective date, but remanded for consideration of alternative legal grounds for the district court's time schedule order.
-
The court affirmed the district court's order imposing a contempt sanction and the order closing the old jail facility, finding both were appropriate remedies for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
-
The court held that the order directing repossession of the telephone system was a reviewable preliminary injunction, but the order directing payment of funds was not appealable. The denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant wa
-
The court held that the district court's stay order, which permitted discovery on the RICO claim, was not a final order and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
The Ninth Circuit held that a prior panel's order implicitly determining the lack of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes the law of the case, precluding the current appeal on that issue.
-
An order requiring the posting of security as a condition to granting a preliminary injunction is not an immediately appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) nor under the collateral order doctrine.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by staying the proceedings and that the INS has a mandatory duty under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 to process naturalization applications for Filipino veterans.
-
The court held that the dismissal of antitrust claims seeking injunctive relief, without leave to replead, is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it has the practical effect of refusing an injunction and causes serious, irreparable harm that can only be ch