28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) Certification

92 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hackett v. Gen. Host Corp.
  455 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 130×
  An order refusing to confirm a class action is appealable as a collateral order under Cohen or as a termination of litigation under Dickinson-Gillespie.
• In re Cont'l Inv. Corp.
  637 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 78×
  The court held that denials of attorney disqualification motions in bankruptcy proceedings are generally not immediately appealable as of right, either under the Bankruptcy Act or the collateral order doctrine.
• Lipton v. Documation, Inc.
  734 F.2d 740· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 46×
  This circuit recognizes the fraud on the market theory for class actions alleging inflated open market stock prices due to defendant's deception.
• E. Maico Distribs., Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik
  658 F.2d 944· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that discovery orders and sanctions imposed under Rule 37(a)(4) are generally not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even when imposed on an attorney, as they are not final decisions and do not meet the collateral order exception.
• Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc.
  89 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-27 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged prima facie cases for quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII and the FCRA, and that her claims were not time-barred due to the continuing violation doctrine.
• LE Vick v. Skaggs Cos., Inc.
  701 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 43×
  There is no implied private right of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1674(a) because Congress did not intend to create one.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Neches Butane Prods. Co.
  704 F.2d 144· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the district court's stay order, as the order was neither final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor appealable as a collateral order under the Cohen doctrine. The court also dismissed the alternative petition
• van Orman v. The Am. Ins. Co.
  680 F.2d 301· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that employee booklets and letters did not integrate with the pension plan document to grant employees rights to the surplus, and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when a valid contract governs the parties' rights.
• Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc.
  789 F.2d 181· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 37×
  The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state law damage claims that challenge the adequacy of federally mandated warnings or the propriety of advertising and promotion, as these claims conflict with the Act's purposes.
• Garner v. Wolfinbarger
  433 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-31 ·cited 36×
  Interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is inappropriate for reviewing a district court's discretionary transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States
  584 F.2d 1366· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 30×
  The court should exercise discretion to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp.
  534 F.2d 1031· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that interlocutory appeals of discovery orders are generally not permitted without specific certification or a showing of manifest abuse of discretion.
• N. Am. Acceptance Corp. Sec. Cases v. Arnall
  593 F.2d 642· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 29×
  The denial of a motion to disqualify class counsel is not an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it does not conclusively determine the disputed question and can be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment.
• Motor Carriers Council OF ST. Louis, Inc. v. Local Union NO. 600
  486 F.2d 650· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the union's strike in breach of the collective bargaining agreement's no-strike clause was not justified by an alleged impasse in negotiations, as the contract continued in effect and did not terminate on March 31, 1970.
• Winbourne v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  632 F.2d 219· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that summary judgments were improperly entered without adhering to Rule 56(c)'s notice requirements and without resolving Eastern's affirmative defenses.
• Acron Invs., Inc. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  363 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) qualifies as an "agency" of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 451, granting district courts original jurisdiction over its suits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345, even if it no longer has outstanding stock
• Kraus v. Bd. OF Cnty. Rd. Comm'rs FOR the Cnty. OF Kent & Bd. of Cnty. Rd. Comm'rs for the Cnty. of Newaygo
  364 F.2d 919· 6th Cir.· 1966-08-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) should be denied because the case is not an exceptional one that would materially advance the litigation's termination.
• Republic Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  570 F.2d 467· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 24×
  An international union may be liable for damages if it fails to use reasonable efforts to halt illegal wildcat strikes by its members, especially when the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration.
• Bowers v. Eusebio G. Moreno
  520 F.2d 843· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of jurisdiction under Section 302 of the LMRA, but affirmed its exercise of pendent jurisdiction over employer trustees for state law claims.
• Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Adkins
  330 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of a related state court action, finding the order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Voorhies Stelly v. Emp'rs Nat'l Ins. Co. & Bauer Dredging Co., Inc.
  431 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-25 ·cited 21×
  An order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is interlocutory, not a final judgment, and thus requires timely application for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Watch (Waterbury Action TO Conserve OUR Heritage Incorporated) v. Harris
  603 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 20×
• The United States v. Cook
  795 F.2d 987· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court had the power to order the disclosure of names and addresses of potential FLSA plaintiffs and that doing so was not an abuse of discretion, but the order tolling the statute of limitations was premature.
• Ass'n FOR Women IN Sci. v. Califano
  566 F.2d 339· D.C. Cir.· 1977-10-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that HEW Form 474, a conflict of interest statement required of special government employees, is protected by a qualified confidential report privilege, and therefore not subject to discovery.
• Melendez v. Singer-Friden Corp.
  529 F.2d 321· 10th Cir.· 1976-01-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order dismissing a Title VII claim, which severely limits injunctive relief, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court further affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII claim as untimely filed.
• United States v. Davey
  426 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the IRS summons for credit information was valid, the district court must conduct a limited hearing to determine fair compensation for Credit Data's reports.
• Fellows v. Universal Rests., Inc.
  701 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 16×
  A district court's dismissal of class action allegations for lack of jurisdiction is inappropriate if a non-frivolous federal question is presented and the EEOC charges are sufficiently like or related to the class action claims.
• Adams v. Trs. of the NEW Jersey Brewery Emps'. Pension Tr. Fund
  670 F.2d 387· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the partial termination clause was a valid exercise of trustee discretion, reversing the district court's finding that it was arbitrary and capricious. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against employers for direct liability and the bar of claims
• In re la Providencia Dev. Corp.
  515 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1975-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's failure to follow the proper procedure for seeking an interlocutory appeal resulted in the forfeiture of that opportunity.
• Molybdenum Corp. OF Am. v. Kasey
  279 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-09 ·cited 16×
  The Court of Appeals vacated its prior order granting an interlocutory appeal because the case was not yet ripe for such an appeal.
• Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp.
  947 F.2d 627· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court's Rule 54(b) certification was insufficient and an abuse of discretion, thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• The Va. Hosp. Ass'n v. Baliles
  868 F.2d 653· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Virginia Plan's reimbursement procedures for Medicaid patients create an enforceable right under the Medicaid Act, actionable via § 1983, and that the Act's enforcement mechanisms do not foreclose this private judicial remedy.
• Walls v. Miss. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  730 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while educational requirements were job-related and not discriminatory, written examinations and selection from eligibility certificates did have a disparate impact on black applicants, violating Title VII. The court reversed certain injunctive relief and cost
• Robinson v. Penn Cent. Co.
  484 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 14×
  Extraterritorial service authorized by federal securities statutes can confer personal jurisdiction over pendent state law claims.
• Ortman v. Stanray Corp.
  371 F.2d 154· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The district court had diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for infringement of foreign patents.
• Morton W. Weir v. Propst
  915 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a) allows amendment of interlocutory orders for certification, it cannot be used to circumvent statutory time limits without justification.
• McKINNEY v. Gannett Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 1240· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 12×
  The trial court's judgment, granting an option for rescission after an accounting and appeal, is final and reviewable, and a decision on the merits would not be an advisory opinion.
• NEW York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v. Blum
  678 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-04 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the interlocutory appeal because the certified question was not ripe for review, as the district court had not definitively ruled on the merits of the standing or the alleged conflict with the PSRO Act, and the issue might be moot.
• Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev., Inc.
  853 F.2d 163· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 11×
  A good faith purchaser is not a holder in due course of promissory notes where indorsements are on separate, unattached sheets of paper, as this fails to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code's requirement for indorsements to be firmly affixed to the instrument.
• Bullock v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.
  817 F.2d 58· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was not a final order and did not meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc.
  725 F.2d 970· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court holds that it lacks appellate jurisdiction because the order denying the motion to dismiss is not a final judgment and does not fall under any exceptions to the finality requirement.
• Clark-Dietz & Associates-Engineers, Inc. v. Basic Constr. Co.
  702 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 10×
  The court denied leave to appeal because the district court failed to specify a controlling issue of law and the appellants did not present issues appropriate for interlocutory consideration.
• Simpson v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights
  608 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 10×
  Federal law does not preempt Alaska's age discrimination statute, and federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over the case.
• Hanson v. Hunt OIL Co.
  488 F.2d 70· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant failed to timely file an application for permission to appeal within the statutory ten-day period.
• McLean v. Church of Scientology of Cal.
  538 F. Supp. 545· M.D. Fla.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that constructive service of process upon the defendants was valid under Florida Statute 48.181, as plaintiffs sufficiently established that the defendants engaged in business in Florida and that the suit arose from that business, despite defendants' challenges.
• Mem'l Hosp. Sys. v. Heckler
  769 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 8×
  An order remanding proceedings to an administrative agency for further evidence or findings is generally not an appealable final order.
• Ilsa Klinghoffer and Lisa Klinghoffer Arbitter v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ED Altrigestione Motonave Achille Lauro IN Amministrazione Straordinaria
  921 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 7×
  A 'controlling question of law' under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) does not require the issue to affect a wide range of pending cases; it is sufficient if reversal of the order would terminate the action.
• DELTA Computer Corp. v. Samsung Semiconductor & Telecomms. Co.
  879 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the newly enacted Section 15 of the Federal Arbitration Act applies retroactively to bar appeals of interlocutory orders compelling arbitration, absent manifest injustice. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Nichols v. Stapleton
  877 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed due to a new statute divesting appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory arbitration orders, but the district court should allow the appellant an opportunity to apply for certification for appeal.
• In re Bituminous Coal Wage Agreements. Appeal of Trs. OF the United Mine Workers OF Am. Health & Ret. Funds
  756 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the legality of the purchased-coal clause must be resolved on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances and factual development, rather than by a per se rule.