Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders

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

• Gen. Motors Corp. v. City OF NEW York
  501 F.2d 639· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the appealability of an order granting class action status should be determined by weighing the costs of piecemeal review against the danger of denying justice, rather than by strict adherence to a three-pronged test.
• Bogosian v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  561 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 127×
  The court held that a complaint alleging "interdependent consciously parallel action" to impose tie-in agreements, when read liberally and alleging a "combination," sufficiently states a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that summary judgment was improperly granted wi
• Am. Safety Equip. Corp. v. J. P. Maguire & Co., Inc.
  391 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-20 ·cited 117×
  The court held that antitrust claims are not appropriate for arbitration due to pervasive public interest and the nature of such claims, and that the district court must first determine the arbitrability of an assignee's right to compel arbitration.
• United States v. Wood
  295 F.2d 772· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-27 ·cited 111×
  The dissenting judge argues that the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order was not appealable and that the federal government is not immunized from the federal anti-injunction statute.
• Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. & Chrysler Realty Corp.
  496 F.2d 800· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 97×
  An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is an appealable collateral order under the doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
• Jackson Brewing Co. v. Clarke
  303 F.2d 844· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-14 ·cited 93×
  A district court's order staying proceedings pending the outcome of a state court action is not appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying action is legal in nature and the stay is sought to permit the prior determination of an equitable defens
• Armstrong v. Clovis McALPIN
  625 F.2d 433· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-20 ·cited 92×
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in not approving the settlement agreement because ERISA permits equitable contribution among co-trustees, and the comparative fault rule discussed by the majority is inapplicable and unnecessary dicta.
• United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  642 F.2d 1285· D.C. Cir.· 1980-09-16 ·cited 88×
  The court held that MCI should have been allowed to intervene as of right to appeal the discovery order, and that the discovery order itself is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.
  708 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 87×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the interlocutory order and that the district court properly interpreted the arbitration clause to cover claims arising under the contract, affirming the stay pending arbitration of those specific issues.
• Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Rodney
  186 F.2d 111· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-06 ·cited 80×
  A district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer a civil action to another district where it might have been brought, even if venue would be improper for some defendants, provided the defendants consent to the transfer.
• Lyons v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gen. Elec. Co.
  222 F.2d 184· 2d Cir.· 1955-03-29 ·cited 78×
  A federal district court's stay of proceedings pending a state court determination is not appealable as a final order, but a writ of mandamus may be appropriate if the state court's decision cannot affect the federal action.
• Fulton Caston v. Sears
  556 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-05 ·cited 76×
  The denial of an application to appoint counsel under Title VII is immediately appealable as a final order. The court vacated the denial and remanded because the record did not show the district court exercised reasoned discretion.
• Taylor v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF the City OF NEW Rochelle
  288 F.2d 600· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-13 ·cited 75×
  The court held that an order directing a school board to present a desegregation plan is an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Greater Cont'l Corp. v. Schechter
  422 F.2d 1100· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 74×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the order denying a stay of arbitration proceedings.
• Miller v. United States
  403 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 74×
  The court held that an order enjoining inquiry of jurors is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but can be reviewed via mandamus or prohibition, and affirmed the district court's order controlling such inquiries.
• In re UNR Indus., Inc.
  725 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-17 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district judge's order refusing to appoint a representative for potential future asbestos claimants was not a final, appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. AVIS, Inc.
  316 F.2d 804· 9th Cir.· 1963-04-22 ·cited 71×
  The court held that a judge abused their discretion by dissolving a preliminary injunction and issuing a new one, as it improperly granted full relief and disregarded the prior judge's order without sufficient cause.
• Morgenstern Chem. Co., Inc. v. Schering Corp.
  181 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1950-04-05 ·cited 70×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment due to the presence of genuine issues of fact is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1), even if the motion sought an injunction.
• Korn v. Franchard Corp.
  443 F.2d 1301· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×
• Overby v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & The First Nat'l Bank of Auburn
  224 F.2d 158· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-28 ·cited 64×
  The court held that an order denying a formal claim of governmental privilege is an appealable final decision, and that the order to produce was too broad.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation. T. Bertram Lance v. The United States Dep't OF Just. & the United States Attorney's Off. for the N. Dist. of Ga.
  610 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 58×
  The denial of a motion for contempt is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Herbst v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  495 F.2d 1308· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-03 ·cited 56×
• United States v. Gravel
  455 F.2d 753· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 56×
  The court denied the intervenor's petition for reconsideration and clarified its prior order regarding the scope of inquiry into actions and motives.
• Spangler v. United States
  415 F.2d 1242· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 56×
  An order striking allegations from the United States' complaint in intervention, which sought to expand the scope of a school desegregation case, is an appealable interlocutory order because it effectively denies injunctive relief.
• Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty. v. Daly N. Braxton and Sharon Braxton
  326 F.2d 616· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-10 ·cited 56×
  The dissenting judge believes the order is not a final decision and that the majority erred in applying Brown v. Board of Education to racial personnel assignments without proof of injury.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings Gary Katz v. United States
  623 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 55×
  An attorney can be compelled to produce public documents or copies thereof that were filed by their client, as this does not violate attorney-client privilege.
• Brunson v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Sch. Dist. NO. 1 OF Clarendon Cnty.
  311 F.2d 107· 4th Cir.· 1962-12-07 ·cited 54×
  An order limiting a class action to a single plaintiff, effectively denying broad injunctive relief, is appealable and was erroneous if common questions of fact or law exist.
• Elbert B. Connell v. Dulien Steel Prods., Inc.
  240 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order, even if improperly extended, was not an appealable interlocutory injunction and that the appeal was premature.
• LEE v. PLY*GEM Indus., Inc.
  593 F.2d 1266· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 53×
  The court held that an order denying a stay of proceedings pending arbitration is appealable if the underlying litigation is legal in nature, and that venue under Section 12 of the Clayton Act is proper if the defendant transacted business in the district when the cause of action
• Pabellon v. Line
  191 F.2d 169· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the dismissal of third-party and fourth-party complaints was premature and constituted error, as the pleadings adequately stated claims for breach of warranty and negligence.
• Theo. Hirsch Co. v. Paul R. Scott for McDonald Furniture Co.
  87 Fla. 336· Fla.· 1924-04-04 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a receiver's motion to dismiss an appeal from orders fixing his compensation, holding that orders determining receiver compensation are final and appealable even when entered after a final consent decree, and that the debtor-defendant has standing
• Roberts v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  653 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court's order refusing to dissolve the consent decree was appealable as of right and that the consent decree's seniority provisions remain binding on the parties.
• Ring v. Spina
  166 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1948-03-01 ·cited 51×
  A timely demand for a jury trial in an action under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act entitles the plaintiff to a jury trial for all triable issues, and an order striking the case from the jury calendar is appealable.
• White v. Pierce Cnty. & Raymond Fjetland
  797 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The defendants failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that they had probable cause to believe the child was abused or would be harmed if a warrant was obtained.
• Payton Randle v. Victor Welding Supply Co. & Norman Carlson
  664 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-20 ·cited 50×
  The denial of a motion for appointment of counsel is an appealable interlocutory order under the collateral order doctrine.
• I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc.
  789 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 49×
  An interlocutory order requiring interim withdrawal liability payments is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the appellant fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Gatliff Coal Co. v. COX
  142 F.2d 876· 6th Cir.· 1944-06-01 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act's exclusion for employment contracts in interstate commerce applies to the entire Act, including the stay provision, and that Kentucky law invalidates broad arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements.
• Dollar Rent A CAR OF Wash., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  774 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction and in holding Travelers in civil contempt because Dollar and Viking failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the contempt order was based on i
• Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Honorable James B. Parsons
  561 F.2d 671· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Velsicol's attorney-client privilege was waived by its General Counsel's testimony, and the work product doctrine did not protect documents prepared for prior administrative proceedings from a criminal grand jury investigation.
• Beefy King Int'l, Inc. v. Veigle
  464 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that an order releasing real property from a lis pendens is appealable and was properly discharged because the underlying suit did not directly affect the property.
• The Boeing Co. v. Int'l Union
  370 F.2d 969· 3d Cir.· 1967-01-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the denial of a stay pending arbitration was improper because the collective bargaining agreement did not obligate the plaintiff to arbitrate the specific dispute at issue.
• W. Geophysical Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Bolt Assocs., Inc.
  440 F.2d 765· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appeal from the interlocutory order striking a jury demand and portions of counterclaims was not properly before the court and dismissed the appeal.
• In re the Grand Jury Investigation OF Violations OF 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (Perjury)
  318 F.2d 533· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the order denying General Motors' motion to limit a grand jury investigation is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• O'Connor v. O'Connell
  253 F.2d 365· 1st Cir.· 1958-03-20 ·cited 44×
  An order enforcing an IRS summons for tax years closed by the statute of limitations, but open for fraud, is a final decision and appealable. The IRS must show probable cause to believe fraud occurred, not just a reasonable suspicion.
• Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp.
  797 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 43×
  An interlocutory order requiring a party to set aside assets to satisfy a potential judgment, even if similar to an attachment, is appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it is coercive and treated as such by the parties and the court. Furthermore,
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that the dispute at issue was a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, not subject to arbitration.
• Tomlinson v. Fla. Iron & Metal, Inc.
  291 F.2d 333· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an attorney formerly employed by the IRS is prohibited by statute from representing a taxpayer in a suit against a District Director of Internal Revenue within two years of his government employment termination.
• City OF Naples v. The Prepakt Concrete Co. & Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  494 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 39×
  An order granting arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4 is a final and appealable order, and the time to appeal it has expired.
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o