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

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

• Hodges v. Dep't OF Corr.
  895 F.2d 1360· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 2×
  Orders denying the appointment of counsel in Title VII cases are not immediately appealable under the Cohen exception to the final judgment rule.
• Inmates OF THE Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Cyril H. Wecht
  873 F.2d 55· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Commonwealth failed to file a timely petition for leave to appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 5.
• DEL RE v. Prudential Lines, Inc.
  669 F.2d 93· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 2×
  An employer's ratification of a longshoreman's lawsuit, commenced after the six-month statutory period, cannot circumvent the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act's assignment of the right to sue to the employer.
• Petition of the Trs. OF the Joint Welf. Fund OF the Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Nolan
  549 F.2d 871· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the order denying a motion to modify a prior order appointing a special master is not a final decision and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• The Gillette Co. v. "42" Prods. Ltd., Inc.
  435 F.2d 1114· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a party who had the opportunity to elect to have an appeal dismissed and proceed in district court, but instead allowed the appeal to continue, made a binding election and could not later seek to have the case tried de novo in district court.
• Sutherland v. Wellshow Machining Parts, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-09
  The Court entered a default judgment against Defendant Wellshow Machining Parts, Inc. due to its failure to appear with counsel as ordered.
• In re Koch
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-30
  This is an in rem admiralty case in which Carl Koch, as owner of the vessel Great Lakes II, obtained a default judgment barring all persons and entities who failed to file claims by the deadline from pursuing future claims arising from an October 10, 2024 accident. The opinion pr
• Acute, Inc. v. ECI Pharms., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-18
  The Court dismissed Acute's appeal of the Sale Order as untimely and its appeal of the Order Denying Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not a final order and lacked grounds for interlocutory appeal.
• Ronda Scott v. Advanced Pharm. Consultants Inc
  84 F.4th 952· 11th Cir.· 2023-10-17
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeals because the district court's Rule 54(b) certification was improper and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) were not met.
• FMC Corp. v. Glouster Eng'g Co.
  830 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-01
  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from an order issued by a district court in the transferee district of a multidistrict litigation, even if the case originated in the Seventh Circuit.
• NUI Corp. v. Irwin I. Kimmelman
  765 F.2d 399· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-25
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment declaring a New Jersey statute unconstitutional and vacating an election, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the statute and the election outcome.
• The Strode Publishers, Inc. v. Lou Holtz and Wally Hall
  665 F.2d 333· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-07
  The pendency of a state court action between the same parties is not a sufficient basis for a federal court to dismiss a properly filed federal action.
• In re Petition for Exoneration & Limitation of Liab. of the Boat Camden, Inc.
  569 F.2d 1072· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-18
  The court held that the district court erred in requiring a petitioner for limitation of liability to post a bond exceeding the value of the vessel and freight, as this contradicts the governing statute.
• In re Mar. Serv. Corp.
  515 F.2d 91· 1st Cir.· 1975-05-13
  The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding that the petitioner had not met the high burden required for such an extraordinary remedy and had adequate alternative means of review.
• Brewster v. United States
  423 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-04
  The court held that the denial of the motion for a temporary injunction was in compliance with Internal Revenue Code § 7421 and thus affirmed, while dismissing the appeal of other rulings for lack of finality.