28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) Certification For Interlocutory Appeal

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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Japan Line, Ltd. v. Sabre Shipping Corp.
  407 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that interlocutory review of the primary jurisdiction issue should not be entertained at this stage, as it would not materially advance the litigation's termination.
• Emmart v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  659 F. Supp. 843· S.D. Fla.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Indiana law should apply to determine the availability of punitive damages because Indiana has a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence, particularly concerning the issue of punitive damages.
• Summers v. United States Dep't of Just.
  925 F.2d 450· D.C. Cir.· 1991-02-08
  The court held that the district court's order granting a stay of proceedings and denying immediate discovery in a Freedom of Information Act suit is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
• Hooks v. Wainwright
  540 F. Supp. 652· M.D. Fla.· 1982-06-07
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution or appoint counsel for a state prisoner unless it is in connection with a habeas corpus proceeding, and jurisdiction is divested when an appeal is taken from a certified order.