28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) Certification

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

• Cent. Soya Co., Inc. v. Voktas, Inc.
  661 F.2d 78· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 6×
  A United States Magistrate, conducting proceedings by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), is authorized to certify an order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  622 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal was improvidently granted and dismissed it because the certified question was not ripe for review and would not materially advance the termination of the litigation.
• Elec. Data Sys. Corp. Iran v. The Soc. Sec. Org. OF the Gov't OF Iran
  610 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1979-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the order of attachment should be reconsidered due to significant changes in US-Iran relations and relevant executive orders.
• 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.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• Quantum Corp. & Plus Dev. Corp. v. Tandon Corp.
  940 F.2d 642· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court's orders compelling discovery and denying a separate trial on willfulness were not immediately appealable as they were effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
• Talbert v. Kelly
  799 F.2d 62· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the city's policy was not unconstitutional and did not cause the plaintiffs' rights violation, nor was the city estopped from denying liability. The court reversed the district court's directed verdict on liability.
• Nutrition 21 v. The United States
  930 F.2d 862· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 4×
  An exclusive licensee of a federally owned patent, authorized by the government agency to sue for infringement in its own name, may maintain such an action without joining the United States as a party, consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2).
• La. ICE Cream Distribs., Inc. v. Carvel Corp. & Franchise Stores Realty Corp.
  821 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue is an interlocutory order and not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it fall under the collateral order exception.
• Flynn v. Merrick
  776 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' appeal of an interlocutory order was not properly before the court, as the unique circumstances of Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. did not apply.
• Navajo Nation v. United States
  668 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 4×
• Oskoian v. Theobald J. Canuel
  264 F.2d 591· 1st Cir.· 1959-03-17 ·cited 4×
  The court granted leave to appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss, finding it involved a controlling question of law that could avoid protracted litigation.
• 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.
• Ark. Peace Ctr. v. Ark. Dep't OF Pollution Control & Ecology
  992 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the defendants' motions for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction, finding they met the four-part test for such a stay.
• RAY v. The Am. Nat'l RED Cross
  921 F.2d 324· D.C. Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petition for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be based on an order, not merely a certified question of law.
• W. Martin Haskell, M.D. v. Wash. Twp.
  891 F.2d 132· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of sanctions is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not properly certify the order for interlocutory appeal.
• Myles v. Henry Lucius Laffitte, M.D.
  881 F.2d 125· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' failure to file their petition for permission to appeal within the ten-day statutory period deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction.
• Fleck v. The E.F. Hutton Grp., Inc.
  873 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior dismissal of an interlocutory appeal does not preclude a new appeal after a statutory change grants an appeal as of right.
• Kiick v. Metro. Edison Co.
  784 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction under the Price-Anderson Act's grant for extraordinary nuclear occurrences requires a prior determination by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and that claims do not "arise under" the Act for federal jurisdiction purposes if
• Haas v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  627 F.2d 677· 3d Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 2×
  A district judge did not abuse discretion by recusing himself when his continued involvement would create an appearance of unfairness, even if allegations of improper conduct are denied.
• Reed v. Rhodes
  549 F.2d 1046· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The Court granted a stay of the District Court's order and judgment pending appeal, finding that the appellants met the criteria for such a stay.
• Ernst & Ernst v. United States Dist. Court FOR the S. Dist. OF Tex.
  457 F.2d 1399· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Trustee could not solely represent the class in a securities action, but granted mandamus to require an additional representative. The petition for mandamus was otherwise denied.
• Purcell v. Kapelski
  444 F.2d 380· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Pennsylvania law, which prohibits a spouse from suing the other for negligence, should govern the case, not New Jersey law.
• Medomsley Steam Shipping Co. v. Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc.
  317 F.2d 741· 4th Cir.· 1963-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an interlocutory order sustaining exceptions to a libel, which did not determine the ultimate rights and liabilities of the parties in an admiralty case, is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
• Booth Ex Rel. Estate of Booth v. Carnival Corp.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 985· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-09 ·cited 1×
  The filing of a state court action, even if dismissed for improper venue based on a contractual forum selection clause, can equitably toll the statute of limitations for a subsequent federal action, provided the plaintiff acted diligently.
• Smitherman v. Quaintance
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-31
  The court denied the defendants' motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-23
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify an order for interlocutory review, finding that the issue involves a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for difference of opinion that will materially advance the litigation.
• Britt v. IEC Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-16
  Former students Kareem Britt and Sharon Henry sought to challenge a federal court's order compelling them to arbitration rather than pursue their lawsuit against Florida Career College, but the court rejected both their motion for reconsideration and their motion to certify the o
• Taylor v. The MultiPlan Network
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-09
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal because they failed to meet the statutory requirements for such an appeal.
• Rodriguez v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-06
  The court denied the motion to certify its prior order denying summary judgment for interlocutory appeal because the defendant failed to establish the required legal grounds and the appeal would not materially advance the litigation.
• In re W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
  984 F.2d 587· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that the circumstances do not warrant interlocutory review through writs of mandamus for discovery orders denying claims of attorney-client and work-product privilege.
• Victor v. Vitols
  984 F.2d 168· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-20
  A magistrate judge, acting pursuant to a reference under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) or (3), has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• In re Showa Denko K.K. L-Tryptophan Prods. Liab. Litigation-Ii. Lola J. Rapoport & Leonard Rapoport v. Showa Denko K.K.
  953 F.2d 162· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-10
  The court held that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the district court's order, which attempted to compel payments from non-parties and interfere with state court proceedings, exceeded the district court's authority in an MDL context.
• In re Chateaugay Corp. v. Iles
  930 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-11
  The court held that interlocutory appeals from district court decisions reviewing bankruptcy court orders under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) are not permitted via 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) certification.
• 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.
• Norco Prods., Inc. v. Mecca Dev., Inc.
  821 F.2d 644· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-24
  An interlocutory order that effectively denies an injunction is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only if it causes serious, irreparable consequences that can only be challenged by immediate appeal.
• 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.
• Tosco Corp. v. The Honorable Luther B. Eubanks
  658 F.2d 797· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-08-07
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate because the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy through intervention and certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Elliot Sandler v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  649 F.2d 19· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-13
  The appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal because the criteria for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) were not met.
• Shapiro v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  632 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-30
  The court held that an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) cannot be taken from an interlocutory order of the Tax Court, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Dearborn Stove Co. v. Farmers Union Coop. GAS & OIL Co.
  304 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1962-06-21
  The court held that an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is not appropriate for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence after a jury disagreement, nor for issues not certified by the trial judge.