Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders

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

• Emilien Levesque v. State OF Me.
  587 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order is appealable when it effectively denies a preliminary injunction and forecloses further interlocutory relief.
• Brannon v. Warn Bros., Inc.
  508 F.2d 115· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable, but an order denying a motion to stay is appealable if the underlying action could have been brought at law and the stay sought an equitable defense. The court reversed the denial of the stay, remanding f
• Cope v. AETNA Fin. Co. OF Me.
  412 F.2d 635· 1st Cir.· 1969-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that if credit insurance premium rates were jointly fixed by the lender and its affiliates at unauthorized levels, the lender's claim could be disallowed, and that the exemption in § 1209 of the Maine Credit Insurance Law does not provide carte blanche immunity for
• Smith v. United States & David M. Satz, Jr.
  377 F.2d 739· 3d Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 22×
  An order denying a pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence, even if framed as an equitable action for return of property and injunction, is not an independently appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292.
• O'Malley v. Chrysler Corp.
  160 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1947-02-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order compelling the defendant to compute overtime hours was a procedural discovery order, not an interlocutory mandatory injunction, and therefore not immediately appealable.
• Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc.
  684 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 21×
  The denial of a motion for intervention of right is an appealable order, and the district court's failure to make specific findings on the intervention issue requires remand.
• 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.
• In re Chicago
  784 F.2d 831· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court held that the Soo Line, as the purchaser of the Milwaukee's railroad assets, is bound by the right of first refusal provision in the trackage rights agreement with the Escanaba.
• United States v. Garcia
  589 F.2d 249· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds were properly denied because jeopardy had not attached in prior proceedings, and the due process claim regarding probationary information was not yet appealable.
• United States v. Est. of Claude Beresford Pearce
  498 F.2d 847· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The order granting a sequestration of stock to prevent transfer is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) as it is functionally equivalent to an injunction or receivership.
• United States v. Sylacauga Props., Inc.
  323 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1963-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's repeated continuances constituted a refusal to wind up the receivership, which is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).
• Div. 689 v. Cap. Transit Co.
  227 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 20×
• Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Mui-Hin LAU
  825 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to amend a pleading is not immediately appealable as a final decision or under the collateral order doctrine, but the attempted appeal would be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Hill v. United States
  346 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to suppress evidence, filed before any criminal prosecution has commenced, is not an appealable final order.
• United States v. Heckinger
  163 F.2d 472· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in releasing a seized vehicle upon the posting of a bond, as such release is inconsistent with the Secretary's exclusive authority to remit or mitigate forfeitures.
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Reisley
  153 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1945-12-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order denying reconsideration of a prior order in a bankruptcy proceeding is appealable if the referee abused discretion in denying reconsideration.
• Cecil E. Locke and his Wife v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  509 So. 2d 1375· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-07-23 ·cited 17×
  This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of State Farm in a mortgage foreclosure action. The court reversed the summary judgment because the motion failed to meet procedural requirements and genuine issues of material fact remained, but affirmed the denial of the motion
• United States v. ONE Residence & Attached Garage OF Anthony J. Accardo Designated AS 1407 Ashland Ave.
  603 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 17×
  The denial of a pre-indictment motion for return of property is not an appealable final order if the motion is tied to a criminal prosecution or seeks suppression of evidence.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sloan
  535 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal, finding most of the orders non-appealable interlocutory decisions.
• United States v. Fort
  409 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-10 ·cited 16×
  A commitment for study under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(e) is considered a final disposition for appeal purposes, similar to commitments under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b).
• Leesona Corp. v. Cotwool Mfg. Corp.
  308 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1962-10-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the order severing and transferring the patent infringement action was not independently appealable, and no abuse of discretion occurred to warrant mandamus relief.
• DE Laney v. City Inv. Co.
  224 F.2d 808· 10th Cir.· 1955-02-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order remanding the case to the referee for further factual determination was not a final, appealable order.
• Orth v. Transit Inv. Corp.
  132 F.2d 938· 3d Cir.· 1942-12-29 ·cited 16×
  A federal court of equity cannot appoint receivers to reorganize a solvent corporation when the pleadings do not support such relief, and consent cannot expand the court's jurisdiction.
• United States v. Armin George Phillips
  699 F.2d 798· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-21 ·cited 15×
  An order granting the government's motion to disqualify retained defense counsel in a criminal case is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a collateral order.
• Pasquarella v. Santos
  416 F.2d 436· 1st Cir.· 1969-10-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the waiver of costs for proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) does not relieve a party of the obligation to post a removal bond required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
• Sterling Forest Assocs., Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp.
  840 F.2d 249· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 14×
  A district court's denial of a motion to transfer venue based on a forum selection clause is immediately appealable and should be reversed if the clause is valid and enforceable.
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• Artell M. Henry v. City OF Detroit Manpower Dep't
  739 F.2d 1109· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The majority's decision improperly expands the collateral order exception to the finality rule, inviting piecemeal appeals of decisions on appointment of counsel.
• Boyce R. "Bill" Moudy v. Southland Distrib. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc.
  452 So. 2d 1045· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of count V, alleging fraud, was appealable but should be without prejudice, allowing the appellant another opportunity to amend.
• In re the Complaint of Patton-Tully Transp. Co. v. Ratliff
  715 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appeal of the seaman status determination was premature, and vacated the order expanding the limitation fund due to the district court's finding of the shipowner's privity or knowledge.
• Angel-Torres v. United States
  712 F.2d 717· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's order denying the return of seized property was appealable and within its discretionary power, balancing equities and considering the unclear legality of the seizure.
• Sperry Corp. & Its Sperry Univac Div. v. City OF Minneapolis & Burroughs Corp.
  680 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to modify an injunction is appealable and that the district court did not err in determining that the settlement agreement was not a contract within the purview of competitive bidding statutes.
• Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  601 F.2d 1329· 6th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's pretrial management order constituted a preliminary injunction, making it appealable, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the FTC before seeking equitable relief.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Hi-Way Elec. Co. v. The Home Indem. Co.
  549 F.2d 10· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion for a stay of enforcement of a registered judgment is an appealable final order under the collateral order doctrine. The court further held that Rule 62(f) is applicable in a registration proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
• In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co. v. Fallon
  200 F.2d 341· 7th Cir.· 1952-12-11 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a motion to disqualify a judge or master is not an appealable order in bankruptcy proceedings, as it does not substantially determine an issue in the administration of the estate.
• Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., Inc.
  761 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court's stay of admiralty proceedings pending arbitration, as such stays are nonappealable interlocutory orders.
• In re Mem'l Ests., Inc.
  797 F.2d 516· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 12×
  An order appointing a genuine equity receiver in a bankruptcy case, even if not a final order, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Swami Prem Niren, Esq. v. Swami Prem Niren
  784 F.2d 939· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Perlman exception, allowing an appeal of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena before contempt, does not extend to subpoenas directed at a third party's in-house counsel.
• Pantry Pride, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Tri-State Pension Fund
  747 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the request for interim payments was not a counterclaim, and therefore the order denying relief was not appealable.
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  692 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 12×
  A district court's temporary restraining order extending a tender offer's proration date is improper and appealable if it functions as a preliminary injunction.
• SUN OIL Co. OF Pa. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank G. Zarb
  572 F.2d 867· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-03-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court's order staying proceedings pending resolution of a separate action, which effectively terminates the litigation, is an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Atl. Richfield Co. v. OIL, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  447 F.2d 945· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot, timely, and that a Rule 54(b) certificate was not required for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief due to changed circumstances and law.
• Fla. Citrus Comm'n v. Griffin
  249 So. 2d 42· Fla. 2d DCA· 1971-06-11 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Citrus Commission appealed a trial court's denial of motions to quash witness subpoenas, but the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's oral ruling was never reduced to writing and signed, failing to satisfy the rendition requirement for appealable orders.
• Stricklin v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Wis. & the President of the Univ. of Wis.
  420 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the interlocutory order was appealable but the issue presented was moot because the students had since been expelled. The appeal was dismissed.
• Austin v. United States
  297 F.2d 356· 4th Cir.· 1961-11-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge properly deferred consideration of suppression questions until after the grand jury acted, as the issues were not yet ripe for adjudication and premature intervention would disrupt criminal processes.
• The Fed. Glass Co. v. Loshin
  224 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that its reputation extended to the relevant geographical area in 1926.
• Fid. Tr. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago
  174 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1949-05-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Court's order vacating a prior interlocutory decree was itself interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States ex rel. Sutton v. Mulcahy
  169 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1948-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court affirms the lower court's decision, finding that the relator had opportunities to appeal jurisdictional issues and address inability to pay the fine.
• Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Beazer Materials & Servs., Inc.
  973 F.2d 688· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an indemnity clause in a formulation agreement did not violate CERCLA public policy, but that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the extent of Beazer's involvement in hazardous waste disposal, precluding summary judgment for Beazer. The court a
• Nat'l Iranian OIL Co. v. Ashland OIL, Inc.
  817 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration and affirmed the denial, finding that the forum selection clause designating Tehran as the seat of arbitration was enforceable and could not be overridden by claims of