Final Decision Rule (28 U.S.C. § 1291)

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

• Bauman v. United States Dist. Court
  557 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 148×
  Mandamus is inappropriate because petitioners have an alternative remedy via interlocutory appeal from the district court's order.
• 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.
• Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Daniels
  763 F.2d 286· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-29 ·cited 92×
  An appeal from an award of attorneys' fees does not bring up for review the merits of the case if the merits judgment was entered on a separate document and was appealable at the time.
• United States v. Buenaventura Martinez
  763 F.2d 1297· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 90×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered after a new trial was granted, and that the district court erred in granting the motion for a new trial.
• Gurule v. Wilson
  635 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a judgment is not final until attorneys fees are addressed, making the second amended judgment the final appealable order. The court also reinstated class certification and affirmed the order for defendants to comply with their own regulations.
• Local P-171 v. Thompson Farms Co.
  642 F.2d 1065· 7th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a district court's certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) can be treated as equivalent to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, even if added nunc pro tunc after the notice of appeal was fil
• United States v. Sorren
  605 F.2d 1211· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the denial of the defendant's motions to divest jurisdiction, for discovery, and for an evidentiary hearing were not immediately appealable interlocutory orders. The court also declined to issue a writ of mandamus.
• Hines v. D'Artois
  531 F.2d 726· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 77×
  A district court order staying a § 1981 employment discrimination suit pending exhaustion of Title VII administrative remedies is an appealable final order if it effectively puts the plaintiff out of court for an indefinite and protracted period.
• 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).
• Pauls v. The Sec'y OF the AIR Force
  457 F.2d 294· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 72×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over most issues, as the order appealed was not a final judgment, but had jurisdiction over the interlocutory order granting injunctive relief. The court reversed the grant of injunctive relief.
• Hamilton v. Nakai
  453 F.2d 152· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-03 ·cited 70×
  A single district judge has the authority to issue a writ of assistance to enforce a judgment previously entered by a three-judge district court, and this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Meese
  791 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act was timely and appealable, and that the government was not substantially justified in its defense of the entire case, warranting an award of fees for the whole litigation.
• Caradelis v. Refineria Panama
  384 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-28 ·cited 69×
  An order dismissing a libel but not finally disposing of a cross libel is not a final decision for appeal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court affirmed the district court's findings regarding liability and damages.
• Korn v. Franchard Corp.
  443 F.2d 1301· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×
• In re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States
  599 F.2d 1224· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-01 ·cited 65×
  The court held that an order quashing a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is not immediately appealable by the government under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
• Donlon Indus., Inc. v. Forte
  402 F.2d 935· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-04 ·cited 64×
  The court held that an appeal from a district court's discretionary denial of an undertaking for costs is not appealable as a collateral order, and thus dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
• Winsor v. Daumit
  179 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1950-02-02 ·cited 53×
  An appeal from an order dismissing less than all claims is not permitted unless the district court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of judgment.
• Microsoftware Computer Sys., Inc. v. Ontel Corp.
  686 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the denial of a stay motion, sought to defer to concurrent state court proceedings, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay is sought to enable the prior determination of an equitable defense.
• People OF the State OF NEW York v. Galamison
  342 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to a federal trial of a state charge under the current interpretation of the statute.
• Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co.
  654 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to sua sponte order a party to arbitrate an issue not previously agreed upon or submitted, and that FLSA claims were not subject to the exhaustion requirement.
• Joslyn N. Williams and Robert L. Bostick v. Mumford
  511 F.2d 363· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 49×
  The court held that an order refusing to certify a class action is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. Barket
  530 F.2d 181· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 48×
• Langley v. Colonial Leasing Co. OF NEW England
  707 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 46×
  The denial of a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4, when filed during a pending underlying suit, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a final judgment, nor is it appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying suit is deemed 'legal' f
• In re Grand Jury Subpoenas
  581 F.2d 1103· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that a writ of mandamus is not warranted absent a compelling showing of abuse of the grand jury process.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Naftalin
  460 F.2d 471· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the appeal from the arrest order was moot, the contempt adjudication and the order requiring deposit of bonds were nonappealable interlocutory orders, and thus dismissed the appeal.
• Cotler v. Inter-County Orthopaedic Ass'n, P. A.
  526 F.2d 537· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court's orders staying federal proceedings and administratively terminating the action were beyond its lawful power and remediable by mandamus.
• Caceres v. Int'l AIR Transp. Ass'n
  422 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 42×
• In re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am. Poultry
  669 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the interclass allocation of the settlement proceeds was fair, adequate, and reasonable, despite claims of attorney conflicts of interest and the inclusion of indirect purchasers.
• Whyte v. THinc Consulting Grp. Int'l
  659 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration is not a final order and is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying action is equitable.
• Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  638 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 39×
  The court held that certain EEOC records are privileged from disclosure under Title VII's confidentiality provisions and the common law official information privilege, but other factual information and records related to a second charge are discoverable.
• Drexler v. Sw. Dubois Sch. Corp.
  504 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-15 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the District Judge's decision should be affirmed.
• Cti-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp.
  685 F.2d 1284· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 35×
  A stay order is a final decision, and thus appealable, if it effectively places a party out of court by imposing an indefinite delay. The district court abused its discretion by staying the entire action, rather than severing and staying only the third-party claims against Iran a
• Robbins v. Maggio
  750 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that orders denying appointment of counsel in civil cases are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation NO. 78-184. Sells, Inc. v. United States
  642 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 34×
  The issue on appeal is moot because grand jury records have already been disclosed, and the appellants have alternative remedies.
• In re Cessna Aircraft Distributorship Antitrust Litig. White Indus., Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co.
  518 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that an interlocutory order granting class action status is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v. Civic Ctr. Theatre, Inc.
  333 F.2d 358· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that discovery orders are generally not appealable as final decisions and that mandamus is not warranted absent a clear abuse of discretion or abdication of judicial function.
• United States v. Greger
  657 F.2d 1109· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 33×
  A pre-indictment, pre-trial order disqualifying defense counsel in a criminal case is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it warrant a writ of mandamus.
• Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc.
  818 F.2d 841· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 32×
  An interlocutory order granting summary judgment of non-infringement is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it causes serious, irreparable consequences that can only be challenged by immediate appeal.
• United States v. Rumpf
  576 F.2d 818· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' motion for mistrial constituted a waiver of their double jeopardy claim, and that probable cause existed for their arrests and the search of the premises.
• Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.
  541 F.2d 365· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court's order approving a tender of back pay and solicitation of releases from class members is not an appealable order under either 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
• Florida v. United States
  285 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the order appointing a temporary receiver but lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the ex parte order directing the marshal to seize assets.
• In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States
  584 F.2d 1366· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 30×
  The court should exercise discretion to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• RePASS v. Vreeland
  357 F.2d 801· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-31 ·cited 27×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's partial summary judgment order was not a final decision under Rule 54(b).
• Spates v. Manson
  619 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's order, which required the defendants to submit a plan for improving legal assistance to prisoners, was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• In re the Special April 1977 Grand Jury. Appeal of William J. Scott v. United States
  587 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a petition to terminate grand jury proceedings was a final, appealable order, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Brizendine
  659 F.2d 215· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review defendants' interlocutory appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds related to plea bargaining.
• In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States
  573 F.2d 936· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the grand jury investigation is a criminal matter, and the disqualification issue could be raised after indictment or via contempt. The court also found no ethical conflict of interest in an IRS l
• John Thompson Beacon Windows, Ltd. v. Ferro, Inc.
  232 F.2d 366· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order overruling a motion to compel arbitration, which does not dispose of the entire case on its merits, is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Doudou Janneh v. GAF Corp. & Ozalid Corp.
  887 F.2d 432· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order denying enforcement of a settlement agreement is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it conclusively determines the dispute, resolves an important issue separate from the merits, and is effectively unreviewable after tri
• United States v. Slay
  858 F.2d 1310· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court dismissed the defendants' interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's order granting a new trial, finding the instructional error was not harmless.