Ancillary Proceedings

129 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. SUN Myung Moon and Takeru Kamiyama
  718 F.2d 1210· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 113×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's jury instructions on the law of trusts contained prejudicial errors, particularly regarding the clarity of intent required for charitable trusts and the burden of proof.
• United States v. Amodeo
  916 F.3d 967· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-21 ·cited 72×
  The defendant lacks standing to appeal the partial vacatur of a forfeiture order because the vacatur did not cause him any injury or restore his ownership interest in the forfeited property.
• Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc.
  785 F.2d 1017· Fed. Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by quashing a discovery subpoena without adequately balancing the relevance and need for the information against the potential hardship to the non-party, and that such an order is appealable as a collateral order.
• United States v. Acord
  209 F.2d 709· 10th Cir.· 1954-01-14 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because it was filed in an improper venue.
• Freeman v. Charles Seligson in Bankr. of Est. of Ira Haupt & Co.
  405 F.2d 1326· D.C. Cir.· 1968-06-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that Section 21(a) examinations in bankruptcy are subject to the same discovery rules as civil litigation, requiring relevance and good cause, and that the Secretary of Agriculture's claims of privilege must be properly asserted and weighed.
• Horizons Titanium Corp. v. Norton Co.
  290 F.2d 421· 1st Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum, when issued by a court ancillary to a proceeding in another district and when the order is the only proceeding between the parties, is a final decision and thus appealable. The court further held that the grounds prese
• United States v. Reed
  773 F.2d 477· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 52×
  Venue for perjury and obstruction of justice charges can lie in the district where the underlying judicial proceeding is pending, not solely where the acts occurred.
• Jules E. Angoff v. Goldfine
  270 F.2d 185· 1st Cir.· 1959-09-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the lower court erred in refusing to consider pre-litigation benefits obtained through an ancillary mandamus proceeding when calculating counsel fees in a derivative action. However, the court affirmed the fee awards for appellants who did not participate in t
• Hyde Constr. Co., Inc. v. Koehring Co.
  388 F.2d 501· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-24 ·cited 48×
  The Court of Appeals held that the federal injunction restraining the state court proceedings was invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and that the civil contempt adjudication must be vacated. The Court also held that the Mississippi state court had jurisdiction to proceed, and the Mis
• H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens
  189 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 47×
  Federal courts are prohibited by statute from granting injunctions to stay state court proceedings, and granting declaratory relief that would interfere with state proceedings constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Baker v. United States Steel Corp.
  492 F.2d 1074· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 46×
  The court should allow appeal of interlocutory orders releasing grand jury testimony, as the practical finality of disclosure outweighs the technical interlocutory nature, especially when there's no authority supporting the release.
• In re Natta v. Zletz v. Baxter
  388 F.2d 215· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-04 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court erred in interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 24 to allow discovery of inadmissible evidence in Patent Office proceedings.
• United States v. Martinson
  809 F.2d 1364· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 41×
  The court held that it retained jurisdiction to hear the appeal even though the government destroyed the property, and that the burden of proof shifts to the government when it no longer needs seized property for evidentiary purposes.
• Constantinos Roumeliotis and Panayota Roumeliotis v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  304 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-15 ·cited 41×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the denial of a first preference visa petition as it is ancillary to deportation orders, and that the denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also held that the INS has no duty to stay deportation proceedings based solel
• In re Standard GAS & Elec. Co. Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.
  119 F.2d 658· 3d Cir.· 1941-04-23 ·cited 40×
  A reorganization court under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act cannot issue process for service outside its territorial limits in a plenary suit against adverse claimants, even if the suit involves the debtor's property.
• United States v. Gilbert
  244 F.3d 888· 11th Cir.· 2001-03-16 ·cited 38×
  The United States appealed the district court's denial of its motion to force Michael Gilbert and his family to file third-party petitions under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(i) to reclaim their interests in a California limited partnership (LCP, Ltd.) that owned part of the Bell Gardens Bicy
• United States v. Koenig
  290 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1961-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a government appeal from a district court order suppressing evidence is not appealable if the motion to suppress was made after a complaint and commitment hearing but before indictment.
• Giulio Natta v. Zletz
  379 F.2d 615· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-23 ·cited 32×
  The denial of a motion for document production ancillary to a patent interference proceeding is a final, appealable order, and the district court erred in abstaining from exercising its jurisdiction based on the Patent Office's unclear pronouncements.
• Atlas Land Corp. v. Norman
  116 Fla. 800· Fla.· 1934-10-11 ·cited 32×
  This case addresses whether a court can consider evidence from a separate, pending case when ruling on a new, ancillary case. The appellate court held that a court cannot take judicial notice of records from other cases unless they are formally made part of the current case's rec
• Wallace v. United States
  142 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1944-02-17 ·cited 31×
  A government attorney's consent to vacate a dismissal order is ineffective to waive the statute of limitations defense against the United States.
• Berman v. Denver Tramway Corp.
  197 F.2d 946· 10th Cir.· 1952-07-03 ·cited 28×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction to prevent relitigation in state court of matters already adjudicated in a federal decree, even after the res has been discharged and the receiver discharged.
• Nat'l Nut Co. of Cal. v. Kelling NUT Co.
  134 F.2d 532· 7th Cir.· 1943-03-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an order modifying and enforcing a subpoena duces tecum in aid of a deposition for a case pending in another district is not a final decision and therefore not appealable.
• Space Coast Credit Union v. THE First
  467 So. 2d 737· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-03-28 ·cited 27×
  Space Coast Credit Union sought to garnish funds at a bank but the writ was defectively served by an unauthorized process server on a low-level bank employee rather than proper corporate officers. The appellate court held that the defective service failed to perfect the court's s
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunshine Mining Co.
  125 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1942-02-05 ·cited 27×
  Federal courts have the power to enjoin state court proceedings that interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction and enforcement of federal court decrees, particularly those issued under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Ward v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  224 F.2d 547· 9th Cir.· 1955-06-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the taxpayer realized his full share of the partnership sale proceeds in 1946, despite a portion being attached, and that attorney and appraiser fees incurred to facilitate the sale were capital expenditures, not deductible business expenses.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Invs. Sec. Corp. & William H. Brown. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Invs. Sec. Leasing Corp.
  560 F.2d 561· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the receiver for ISLC had no interest in the securities, but vacated the district court's finding that Equibank was not a bona fide purchaser, and lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership of the securities as the original owners were not parties.
• State OF Wis. v. Schaffer
  565 F.2d 961· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a contempt proceeding against a federal officer for refusing to comply with a state subpoena is a removable action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and that the denial of a petition for disclosure of grand jury testimony was an abuse of discretion under the circumstanc
• McPHERSON v. Gerrit Hoffman
  275 F.2d 466· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the third-party complaint did not state a valid claim for indemnity and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party defendants. The court also found that certain jury instructions were inadequate and that contributory negligence should hav
• Ochsner v. Millis
  382 F.2d 618· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-15 ·cited 22×
  An order denying a motion to compel testimony in a patent interference proceeding is appealable if it is final for all practical purposes and the aggrieved party has no other means of effective review.
• Nash v. Walker
  78 So. 2d 685· Fla.· 1955-02-09 ·cited 22×
  Nash Chemical Company sought to recover approximately $4,000 for fungicides and insecticides from Walker and Williams. After Nash obtained a garnishment writ and later discharged it by bond, the defendants counterclaimed for damages to their personal and financial reputation from
• In re Bohart v. Bohart
  743 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a reversal of a judgment by a Texas Court of Civil Appeals immediately suspends ancillary proceedings like post-judgment garnishment, and that payments made after such reversal are not trapped by the garnishment.
• Mosseller v. United States
  158 F.2d 380· 2d Cir.· 1946-11-27 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to authorize the taking of a deposition to perpetuate testimony for use in a future admiralty action against the United States, and that the order granting such authorization was appealable.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Kelly
  348 So. 2d 49· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-06-30 ·cited 20×
  Metropolitan Dade County and employee Pena appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss in a negligence case where they were named as third-party defendants. The court reversed, holding that Dade County was entitled to invoke its venue privilege even as a third-party defendant,
• Sherr v. Sierra Trading Corp.
  492 F.2d 971· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the leaseholds but not over the proceeds of production held by a third-party purchaser. The court reversed the turnover and stay orders concerning the proceeds.
• Cudahy Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  117 F.2d 692· 10th Cir.· 1941-01-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court has jurisdiction to order compliance with an NLRB subpoena duces tecum, and the company's defenses are limited to the Board's jurisdiction and the relevance of the evidence sought.
• State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill
  99 Fla. 1012· Fla.· 1930-05-05 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error challenging an order dismissing part of a condemnation petition, holding that the order was not a final judgment because the underlying condemnation case remained pending. The court clarified that a judgment is final only when i
• Jeffreys v. Coleman
  20 Fla. 536· Fla.· 1884-01-01 ·cited 20×
  The court addressed two main issues: whether an order dissolving an attachment is a final judgment appealable by the plaintiff, and whether a partnership bond signed by one partner in the firm's name binds all partners. The court held that the dissolution of an attachment is a fi
• Nicolae Dragan v. John and Sylvia Miller
  679 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 19×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit that, despite its labels, is effectively a challenge to a will's validity due to undue influence, as such claims are ancillary to probate proceedings in Illinois.
• Shattuck v. Helmut Hoegl and Giacomo Barchietto (Xerox)
  523 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 19×
  The court held that discovery orders in proceedings ancillary to patent interference cases are appealable final judgments.
• Clement J. Ings v. Murray Ferguson
  282 F.2d 149· 2d Cir.· 1960-08-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that U.S. courts should not enforce subpoenas for foreign records when doing so may violate foreign law or circumvent established international procedures like letters rogatory.
• In re James Frederick Weir. United States v. Weir
  520 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court adhered to its prior decision, finding the refusal to answer grand jury questions unjustified despite claims of coerced confession.
• Bryan v. Smith
  174 F.2d 212· 7th Cir.· 1949-05-02 ·cited 18×
  An ancillary proceeding cannot be used to enforce an interlocutory order made in a suit that has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
• Weinberg v. United States
  126 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1942-03-11 ·cited 18×
  A district court order authorizing seizure of property in its district based on an order from a district court in another state is illegal and must be remedied by the United States Attorney in the district where the seizure occurred.
• Holland v. State
  15 Fla. 549· Fla.· 1876-01-01 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court rejected the State's motion to dismiss Daniel P. Holland's appeal, holding that once an appeal is perfected and jurisdiction attaches to the appellate court, the lower court loses jurisdiction and any subsequent dismissal by the plaintiff is void. The co
• 150 E. 47TH St. Corp. v. Porter
  156 F.2d 541· Emer. Ct. App.· 1946-07-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it retains jurisdiction to hear complaints seeking to invalidate rent orders for liabilities incurred before the Emergency Price Control Act's termination date, even if the Act itself has expired.
• Cohn v. Cohn
  151 Fla. 547· Fla.· 1942-10-13 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's jurisdiction to modify alimony provisions in a divorce decree through an ancillary proceeding against a nonresident defendant wife, ruling that service of process by publication was authorized under Florida statute for such pro
• Est. of Jackson v. Ventas Realty
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-12 ·cited 14×
  A Florida statutory supplemental proceeding under Section 56.29 to enforce a state court judgment is not a "civil action" removable to federal court because it is an ancillary continuation of the original state court action and federal courts lack original jurisdiction over such
• Hughes v. Sharp
  476 F.2d 975· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory contempt order.
• Thomas French & Sons v. Int'l Braid Co.
  146 F.2d 735· 1st Cir.· 1945-01-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order compelling a witness to produce documents and testify in an ancillary proceeding for a Patent Office case is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable.
• Schick v. Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. & Doyle Conner
  586 So. 2d 452· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-09-18 ·cited 12×
  Appellants sought attorney's fees for services rendered in a mandamus action to enforce a final inverse condemnation judgment against the Florida Department of Agriculture. The court held that attorney's fees for mandamus proceedings ancillary to condemnation actions are recovera