Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders

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

• In re Search Warrant (sealed)
  810 F.2d 67· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 11×
  The order denying a physician's motion to suppress medical records seized via search warrant is immediately appealable because it implicates third-party patient privacy rights, and the physician has standing to assert those rights.
• Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Grp., P.A.
  701 So. 2d 118· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-10-31 ·cited 10×
  Health Care Associates appealed an arbitration order from the lower court, but the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the order confirming, modifying, or vacating the arbitration award was interlocutory and non-final, and no supreme court rule
• United States v. Bradley
  905 F.2d 1482· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 10×
  Retrial on severed marijuana counts is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the severance was manifestly necessary due to improper joinder, and the defendants did not waive their rights by seeking a complete severance.
• Hendrickson v. Griggs
  856 F.2d 1041· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 10×
  An order directing state officials to submit a plan for achieving compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it contains additional, appealable injunctive relief or specifies the
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  846 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to stay or refer issues to the Interstate Commerce Commission is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• State Establishment FOR Agric. Prod. Trading v. M/V Wesermunde
  838 F.2d 1576· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering arbitration in London because the bill of lading incorporated COGSA, and the foreign arbitration clause lacked express agreement or actual notice, thus conflicting with COGSA's purpose. The court also held that dismissal wi
• Refac Int'l, Ltd. v. IBM
  790 F.2d 79· Fed. Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court granted Refac's request to withdraw its prior dismissal order, but ultimately granted IBM's motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and imposed sanctions.
• United States v. Mellon Bank
  545 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 10×
  A district court's order staying civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and extraordinary writs are not warranted absent a clear abuse of discretion.
• Jelfo v. Hickok Mfg. Co., Inc.
  531 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 10×
  The order denying class certification is not appealable because the record is insufficient to determine if the 'death knell' doctrine applies.
• Berrigan v. Sigler
  475 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order preventing parolees from traveling to North Vietnam was appealable due to the irreparable loss of the opportunity and potential mootness, and that the Parole Board's justifications for denial were insufficient to ove
• Conboy v. The City OF Naples
  226 So. 2d 108· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-08-01 ·cited 10×
  A group of Naples taxpayers appealed a lower court decision involving alleged underassessment of developer lands. Chief Pontiac Motors moved to dismiss the appeal as to itself, arguing that a directed verdict judgment in its favor rendered in 1967 was final and should have been a
• Korody Marine Corp. v. Minerals & Chems. Philipp Corp.
  300 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1962-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The denial of a stay of an action at law pending arbitration is appealable as an order refusing an injunction.
• New York v. Lehigh & NEW England R.R. Co.
  287 F.2d 678· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to stay proceedings is generally not an appealable order.
• Elsinore C. Machris Gilliland v. Faye Lyons
  278 F.2d 56· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-11 ·cited 10×
  An order granting a motion for a new trial is not appealable if the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the order, which is presumed when the order refers to a timely filed motion.
• Parr v. United States
  225 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1955-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order dismissing an indictment, which does not determine guilt or innocence, is not a final order and therefore not appealable.
• Hudson Lumber Co. v. United States Plywood Corp.
  181 F.2d 929· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court correctly stayed the action because the issue was referable to arbitration under the agreement and the defendants were not in default.
• Bingham Pump Co., Inc. v. Edwards
  118 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the patent claims at issue were invalid because they were anticipated by a prior patent, representing only a mere carrying forward or application of existing ideas.
• Karriem Wali Muhammad v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail & United States & Lt. Young, Baltimore City Jail
  849 F.2d 107· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the order of the district court is appealable and the case must be remanded, but disagreed with the majority's decision on substantive issues not yet ripe for review.
• Watson v. Comm'rs Court OF Harrison Cnty.
  616 F.2d 105· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court erred in delaying reapportionment until after the 1980 census, as it would perpetuate unconstitutional voting dilution.
• In re Schoenfield v. Schoenfield
  608 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a new trial de novo is required when a bankruptcy judge becomes unable to complete a bench trial before filing findings of fact and conclusions of law, absent party consent, to ensure proper credibility assessment.
• In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to Testify Before the Grand Jury Directed to the Custodian of Records of TRW with regard to Arthur F. Gren v. TRW, Inc.
  633 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is appealable when the subpoena is directed to a third-party custodian of records and compliance would violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
• Bernstein v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Orlando
  384 So. 2d 301· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The appellants, individual defendants and guarantors on a $600,000 mortgage note, challenged an order striking certain affirmative defenses and dismissing portions of their counterclaim in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by First Federal Savings & Loan Association. The appe
• Fowler v. Edward ("Ike") Merry
  468 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to amend a complaint to add a party is not an immediately appealable order.
• In re the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum of Raymond J. Ryan
  430 F.2d 658· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, which also modified the subpoena and required affirmative action in a foreign country, was an appealable interlocutory order.
• Formigli Corp. v. Alcar Builders, Inc.
  329 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 8×
  An order staying an action at law pending arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the dispute over whether the arbitration clause covers a total breach claim is itself arbitrable.
• Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co.
  310 F.2d 627· 4th Cir.· 1962-11-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal referencing an interlocutory order is timely if the intent to appeal the final judgment is clear and the appellee is not misled. It also held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit contingent orders for subrogation claims even before the substa
• Pettit v. Olean Indus., Inc.
  266 F.2d 833· 2d Cir.· 1959-04-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pledgee's purchase of collateral was a nullity, and the bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to determine the validity of the pledgee's claim regarding proceeds from the Olean shares. However, the dispute over Keta shares constituted a 'controversy' a
• Am. Mach. & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co., Inc.
  173 F.2d 890· 2d Cir.· 1949-04-08 ·cited 8×
• In re Pittsburgh RYS. Co. Sullivan v. Philadelphia Co.
  164 F.2d 488· 3d Cir.· 1947-11-26 ·cited 8×
  Orders of reference to a Special Master, which do not adjudicate rights or claims but merely direct the Special Master to proceed, are not immediately appealable.
• United States v. ALL Assets OF Statewide Auto Parts, Inc.
  971 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the seizure warrant was validly issued ex parte, and the seizure did not violate defendants' due process rights, as extraordinary circumstances justified the pre-hearing seizure.
• Elbert Welch v. Smith
  810 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 7×
  An order denying a plaintiff the appointment of counsel to represent him in pursuing the merits of a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not be challenged separately by a direct appeal.
• United States v. Storage Spaces Designated NOS. "8" & "49" Located AT 277 E. Douglas
  777 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-03 ·cited 7×
  A denial of a motion for return of property is appealable if no criminal prosecution is pending, and search warrants are sufficiently particular if the listed items provide guidelines for executing a broad catchall provision.
• Agretti v. ANR Freight Sys.
  982 F.2d 242· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 6×
  Non-settling defendants lack standing to object to a class action settlement unless they can demonstrate plain legal prejudice, and an order denying a motion to amend a pleading is not immediately appealable as a final judgment.
• Dick Gregory v. Depte
  896 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the two-can per customer per month sanction as a coercive civil contempt, appealable as an injunction, but vacated the $10.00 per can sanction for lack of evidentiary basis and remanded for clarification of its nature.
• Johnson v. State OF Tex.
  878 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 6×
  An order holding a § 1983 civil rights suit in abeyance pending exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• The Continuum Co., Inc. v. Incepts, Inc.
  873 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court continued the stay of the district court's order increasing the bond and dissolving the injunction, pending appeal.
• In re the Application of The Am. Tobacco Co. v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  866 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 6×
  An order directing a non-party witness to produce documents, even if issued by a court other than where the underlying action is pending, is not appealable in advance of a contempt adjudication.
• AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc.
  855 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 6×
  An order imposing sanctions solely on a non-party attorney is immediately appealable, and the court remanded the case for reconsideration of the sanctions, finding the district court's stated reasons for imposing them were erroneous.
• Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
  832 F.2d 739· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court applied the correct standard ('compelling need') for modifying a protective order and did not abuse its discretion in denying the CFTC's motion.
• United States v. Mid-States Exch.
  815 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an indictment returned after the notice of appeal was filed renders the prior order denying a motion for return of property interlocutory and thus unappealable.
• United States v. Search Warrant FOR 405 N. Wabash
  736 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a Rule 41(e) motion for return of property is nonappealable if the movant is subsequently indicted, as the pending prosecution provides an adequate opportunity to challenge the seizure.
• In re Abingdon Realty Corp. v. O'Donnell
  634 F.2d 133· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court holds that the appeal is not premature and that it has jurisdiction under § 24(a) of the Bankruptcy Act to review the district court's order.
• In re Knable v. Wilson
  570 F.2d 957· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus was not appropriate to compel the reinstatement of the District of Columbia as a party defendant, and that the denial of class-action certification was not immediately appealable under the 'death knell' doctrine.
• R. W. (Bill) Glenn v. Ark. Best Corp.
  525 F.2d 1216· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 6×
• S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb
  294 So. 2d 712· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-03-26 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Smith
  463 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a tardy service of a wiretap inventory does not require suppression absent a showing of prejudice, and that a pre-indictment motion to suppress under the Wiretap Act is not independently appealable.
• United States v. Murphy
  290 F.2d 573· 3d Cir.· 1961-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to suppress evidence and for its return, filed before indictment, is a final appealable order. The court also held that the arresting agents had probable cause to believe a misdemeanor was being committed in their presence, justifying
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  238 F.2d 654· 1st Cir.· 1956-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the orders appealed from were not final or appealable interlocutory orders, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Kyle v. United States
  211 F.2d 912· 9th Cir.· 1954-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of the motion for a speedy trial was not an abuse of discretion, considering the practical administration of justice and the defendant's own actions.
• Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp.
  189 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a petition to vacate an equity receivership is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2), absent exceptional circumstances not present here. The court also found that the district court had jurisdiction over the underlyin