28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) (Interlocutory Appeals)

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

• Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
  521 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-10 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the district court did not err in directing the entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) for an undisputed claim, despite a pending unrelated counterclaim, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay of execution under Rule 62(h).
• Johnson v. Warden Noah Alldredge and Corrections Officer Cronrath
  488 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 84×
  Federal executive officers are immune from damage liability for actions taken within the outer perimeter of their duties, even if those actions violate constitutional rights, unless a statute expressly abrogates such immunity.
• Local P-171 v. Thompson Farms Co.
  642 F.2d 1065· 7th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a district court's certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) can be treated as equivalent to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, even if added nunc pro tunc after the notice of appeal was fil
• Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y OF SAN Diego
  662 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 68×
  The court held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a Title VII case is not immediately appealable as a collateral order because it is effectively reviewable after final judgment and does not involve rights that would be destroyed by delaying review.
• Rapp v. Honorable Francis L. VAN Dusen
  350 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-10 ·cited 67×
  The majority held that the respondent judge erred in denying a recusal request, even without a statutory violation, to avoid the appearance of partiality.
• In re Data Access Sys. Sec. Litig. Appeal of Tolins & Lowenfels & Roger A. Tolins. Appeal of I. Kahlowsky & Co. & Peter Cunicelli
  843 F.2d 1537· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 63×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's order, arguing that the majority's newly adopted federal statute of limitations rule should not be applied retroactively to this case.
• Herbst v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  495 F.2d 1308· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-03 ·cited 56×
• Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, the refusal to certify the class action is not reviewable on appeal due to the policy against piecemeal appeals, but the case is remanded for technical correction of the dismissal order.
• Ramsay v. Bailey
  531 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice for want of prosecution due to the plaintiff's prolonged pattern of delay and failure to comply with court orders.
• Willi Moeller v. Ionetics, Inc.
  794 F.2d 653· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in construing the patent claims without considering extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, and in applying prosecution history estoppel too broadly.
• In re Dalton v. United States & Scott H. Phillips for Ariz. Fuels Corp.
  733 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's orders withdrawing reference and transferring venue, and that an extraordinary writ of mandamus was not warranted.
• Johnston v. Cartwright
  355 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1966-01-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an attorney's statement made in the context of a labor dispute, even before formal litigation, is protected by absolute privilege under Iowa law. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretionary dismissal of the action against other defendants under Rul
• Jules Link and Solomon Katz v. Mercedes-Benz OF N. Am., Inc.
  550 F.2d 860· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court should proceed to consider substantive points of an interlocutory appeal, particularly the issue of separate juries for liability and damages phases, as it presents a serious and controlling legal question.
• Caceres v. Int'l AIR Transp. Ass'n
  422 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 42×
• Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp.
  587 F.2d 866· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-23 ·cited 41×
  A class action does not become moot if a motion for class certification has been diligently pursued and is pending when the named plaintiffs are tendered their individual damages.
• Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. & Arthur Andersen & Co.
  541 F.2d 1335· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-24 ·cited 41×
  The court held that defendants could not appeal class certification under § 1291, mandamus was inappropriate for refusal to certify under § 1292(b) or for (b)(3) class certification, but granted mandamus to vacate (b)(1) class certification.
• In re United Shoe Mach. Corp.
  276 F.2d 77· 1st Cir.· 1960-03-18 ·cited 40×
  The court denied the motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• United States v. The State OF Ala.
  828 F.2d 1532· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court's order requiring submission of a remedial plan was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the judge's prior legislative involvement and his children's membership in the plaintiff class did not warrant disqualification.
• In re Uranium Antitrust Litig. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. RIO Algom Ltd.
  617 F.2d 1248· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 35×
  A default judgment against some joint tortfeasors cannot be entered while liability for others remains undecided, as this would improperly sever a single claim.
• Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. OF Am.
  408 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a direct appeal of an order denying a motion for change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not permitted, but treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• In re Benny v. England
  791 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals challenging the constitutionality of sections of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, and affirmed the denial of intervention to bankruptcy judges.
• Bohms v. Gardner
  381 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1967-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a district court's order remanding a Social Security Act case to the Secretary for further proceedings is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Sch. Dist. OF Lancaster v. Lake Asbestos OF Quebec, Ltd.
  789 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide mandatory class for punitive damages under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) due to inadequate findings and an under-inclusive class.
• Florida v. United States
  285 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the order appointing a temporary receiver but lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the ex parte order directing the marshal to seize assets.
• Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc.
  635 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1980-11-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled for unnamed defendants in a class action suit, and that the default judgments were not void or excessive under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motio
• Matthies v. Seymour Mfg. Co.
  270 F.2d 365· 2d Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge would hold that a beneficiary of trusts holding corporate stock has standing to bring a shareholder derivative action, even if the trustees have not sued.
• Gallimore v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  635 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court has the power to reconsider its prior interlocutory order granting a new trial, and that the first jury's verdict was not inconsistent, allowing judgment to be entered on it.
• In re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II. Brannon v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., Inc.
  940 F.2d 832· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court sustained the jurisdictional grant under the Price-Anderson Act, finding that federal courts should be available to determine important federal questions that might arise in public liability actions and to implement the federal scheme for nuclear accident litigation.
• Fischer v. First Nat'l Bank OF Omaha
  466 F.2d 511· 8th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order transferring an action to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is an interlocutory order and is therefore nonappealable.
• Debra A. and George Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  816 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 17×
  Corporate risk management documents containing aggregate reserve information are discoverable, as they do not reveal protected attorney mental impressions or privileged communications to a degree that warrants protection. Rule 26(b)(2) does not limit discovery of such insurance-r
• Iberia Hampton v. City OF Chicago
  643 F.2d 478· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order granting a motion to recuse is not a final and appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it reviewable by writ of mandamus, as litigants lack a protectable interest in having a particular judge hear their case.
• West v. Capitol Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  558 F.2d 977· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the denial of class certification is an interlocutory order, not immediately appealable under Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1291, absent a showing the case won't proceed without it.
• United States v. Long
  537 F.2d 1151· 4th Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 13×
  In a suit brought by the Attorney General under Section 813 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, general monetary damages cannot be awarded to individual victims of discrimination, as the statute authorizes only 'preventive relief' which is equitable in nature.
• Harris v. Luckey
  918 F.2d 888· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The district court correctly applied the law of the case doctrine to deny a motion to dismiss based on new grounds not previously raised or ruled upon.
• Link Aviation, Inc. v. Wilford W. Downs and Van E. Thompson
  325 F.2d 613· D.C. Cir.· 1963-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an amendment substituting subrogated insurers as plaintiffs relates back to the original filing date, even if the statute of limitations has run, provided the original suit was validly commenced for the use of the insurers.
• ST. Mary's Health Ctr. OF Jefferson City v. Bowen
  821 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the February 7 order was not a final judgment, rendering subsequent orders and appeals premature. The appeals were dismissed.
• Matthies v. Seymour Mfg. Co.
  271 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1959-11-24 ·cited 8×
• Fouad Yacoub Rafeedie v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  880 F.2d 506· D.C. Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a statutory exhaustion requirement, unless explicitly declared otherwise by Congress, does not impose an absolute, unwaivable limitation on judicial review but can be excused when insistence on exhaustion would threaten grave harm and not serve congressional p
• Norris Lirette v. N.L. Sperry SUN, Inc.
  810 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 7×
• United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that the transfer of a declaratory judgment action to another district was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Bowe v. First OF Denver Mortg. Invs.
  562 F.2d 640· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying class certification is interlocutory and not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the plaintiff intends to proceed with the individual claim.
• Chicago Hous. Tenants Org., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth.
  512 F.2d 19· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction was not a final judgment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction.
• Haney v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.
  330 F.2d 940· 4th Cir.· 1964-04-13 ·cited 6×
  A party's refusal to produce documents as ordered by the court, even if done in good faith belief of their irrelevance or privilege, can warrant sanctions, including a default judgment, as it obstructs justice.
• Chvala v. D. C. Transit Sys., Inc.
  293 F.2d 519· D.C. Cir.· 1961-06-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that appeals from a judgment that does not adjudicate all claims or the rights and liabilities of all parties are premature and must be dismissed unless the district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of ju
• Anthuis v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
  971 F.2d 999· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding Groscost, finding that the employer did not improperly exercise discretion in denying severance benefits.
• Shurance v. Planning Control Int'l, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel, even if certified for interlocutory appeal, does not present a controlling question of law that would materially advance the litigation.
• United Coal Cos. v. Powell Constr. Co. & Interstate Equip. Corp. & Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  839 F.2d 958· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for discovery violations, as the attorney-client and work product privileges were improperly disregarded, and the requests for admission were improperly deemed admitted.
• Jensen v. Dole
  677 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an appeal from the denial of a three-judge court is not immediately appealable unless the order is final or certified for interlocutory review. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief was affirmed.
• Christian Echoes Nat'l Ministry, Inc. v. United States
  404 F.2d 1066· 10th Cir.· 1968-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the question of whether discriminatory motives of tax officials are material to an exemption claim is not ripe for decision on the current record.
• Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty. Fla.
  947 F.3d 1362· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a property owner's testimony regarding the value of her land, based on her personal knowledge and experience, is admissible lay opinion testimony. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the award of attorney's fees and costs because the amount ha