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

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

• Uehlein v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  794 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a motion to disburse insurance proceeds held in interpleader is not an appealable collateral order or interlocutory injunction.
• Groseclose v. Dutton
  788 F.2d 356· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's order requiring the submission of a remedial plan for unconstitutional prison conditions was neither a final judgment nor an appealable injunction, thus lacking appellate jurisdiction.
• Marine Petroleum Co. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
  657 F.2d 1231· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order denying the Department of Energy's motion to dismiss it as a party was an appealable final decision on a collateral issue under the Cohen doctrine.
• Siebert v. Great N. Dev. Co. et. al.
  494 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of class certification and the denial of a preliminary injunction were not immediately appealable interlocutory orders.
• Jones v. DEN Norske Amerikalinje A/S
  451 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of injury to longshoremen from carbon monoxide fumes in the vessel's hold was sufficient to support a finding of unseaworthiness, even without expert testimony on specific carbon monoxide levels.
• Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal
  22 F.4th 979· 11th Cir.· 2022-01-06 ·cited 20×
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and did not fall under the exception for interlocutory orders concerning receiverships under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2).
• Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. City OF Pontiac
  792 F.2d 563· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 20×
  The denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, but the denial of the state action antitrust exemption is not. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity.
• Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. Dasa Corp. & Arthur Andersen & Co.
  524 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that claims seeking only declaratory relief for past proxy violations are moot and not justiciable, and that interlocutory orders regarding pretrial discovery are not immediately appealable.
• United States v. Zeno Ponder
  238 F.2d 825· 4th Cir.· 1956-11-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the order suppressing election records was a final, appealable decision and that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence because no illegal search occurred and the defendants were not aggrieved parties.
• 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.
• Hensley v. Wilson
  850 F.2d 269· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 18×
  Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims because the law regarding independent assessment of confidential informant reliability was not clearly established at the time of the disciplinary hearings. However, injunctive relief is appropriate where dis
• Szabo v. U.S. Marine Corp.
  819 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 18×
  An employer's meetings with employees to discuss terms and conditions of employment, even if framed as addressing safety or comfort, can constitute an unfair labor practice if they undermine the union's role as exclusive bargaining representative. However, expressions of anti-uni
• United States v. Thompson
  814 F.2d 1472· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that neither the dismissal of an information nor the vacation of a plea agreement are immediately appealable final decisions, and that a double jeopardy claim based on a voided plea agreement is not subject to interlocutory appeal before trial.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Waukesha v. Warren
  796 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy to review the denial of a jury trial, despite the general rule that mandamus is an extraordinary writ.
• Appeal of Licht & Semonoff
  796 F.2d 564· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal of a discovery sanction order against an attorney is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it meet the criteria for the collateral order exception or a writ of mandamus.
• United States v. Ellis
  646 F.2d 132· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court agrees with the majority's conclusion but cautions against extending the precedent beyond the specific facts of the case.
• United States v. Grand Jury
  425 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the order denying the motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• D. I. Operating Co. v. United States
  321 F.2d 586· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-22 ·cited 18×
  An order compelling compliance with an IRS summons is a final decision and thus appealable, and a hearing is required to resolve factual disputes regarding the relevancy and materiality of requested documents.
• Sch. Dist. NO. 5 v. Lundgren
  259 F.2d 101· 9th Cir.· 1958-09-09 ·cited 18×
  Orders and judgments are not appealable if they do not constitute final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, especially when Rule 54(b) requirements for multiple claims are not met.
• Delaney's Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.
  894 F.2d 1300· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in its clarification order, as the original judgment, as affirmed, awarded $450,000 in punitive damages, not $350,000.
• Bender v. Clark
  744 F.2d 1424· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 16×
• Tolson v. United States
  732 F.2d 998· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court improperly invoked Rule 54(b) to enter a final judgment on part of a single claim, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• Carson Wayne Newton v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  726 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a discovery order directed at non-party governmental entities, even when asserting governmental privilege, unless the entity first refuses compliance and is held in contempt.
• Kennerly v. The United States
  721 F.2d 1252· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the withdrawal of funds from Kennerly's tribal land income fund without a hearing violated his due process rights and constituted a breach of the federal government's fiduciary duty. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Tribe and its
• Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Duncan
  714 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
• Herrington v. The Cnty. OF Sonoma
  706 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order was a final decision, the notice of appeal was timely, and the district court abused its discretion in staying the federal proceedings.
• United States v. McQUILKIN
  673 F.2d 681· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an intermediate appeal on a double jeopardy claim based on the insufficiency of evidence from a prior trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Kappelmann v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  539 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal against the federal defendants must be dismissed for lack of a final decision and that the claims for injunctive relief against Delta were properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, requiring resort to administrative agencies fir
• McSURELY v. McCLELLAN
  521 F.2d 1024· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an investigator's knowing selection and circulation of private, irrelevant documents, even during a facially legislative inquiry, may fall outside the Speech or Debate Clause immunity if those actions exceed the legitimate sphere of legislative activity.
• Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co.
  502 F.2d 178· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an injunction improperly allowed an appeal of an otherwise unappealable venue decision, violating the finality rule.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Lincoln Labs., Inc.
  403 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1968-11-06 ·cited 16×
  An appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(4) for patent infringement requires a final judgment on all issues except accounting, and cannot be taken if other claims remain unresolved.
• Planned Parenthood Association/Chicago Area v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  767 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Chicago Transit Authority's advertising system had become a public forum by designation, and its rejection of Planned Parenthood's advertisement was an impermissible content-based restriction.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Sun Belt Fed. Bank v. Kroenke
  858 F.2d 1067· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kroenke's motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief from default, as Kroenke's asserted defenses lacked merit and his failure to respond was not due to excusable neglect or surprise.
• In re Nat'l Mortg. Equity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certificates Litig. v. Feldman
  821 F.2d 1422· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 14×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order compelling discovery was not a final judgment and the documents had already been produced, rendering effective relief impossible.
• King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp.
  814 F.2d 1560· Fed. Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appeal was properly before it and that the district court could order execution on machine damages while deferring spare parts damages, but vacated the injunction as to spare parts sales.
• Timberlake v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  Orders refusing to stay arbitration are not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because such appeals would undermine the efficiency of arbitration and are not final decisions. The Enelow-Ettelson doctrine does not apply to mixed law-equity actions.
• Jones & Guerrero Co., Inc. v. Sealift Pacific
  650 F.2d 1072· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order vacating a dismissal based on a clerical error is not a final, appealable decision, and the appeal from the remand order is barred.
• United States v. Sisk
  629 F.2d 1174· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary, thus retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the RICO applicability issue.
• The DOW Chem. Co. v. Taylor
  519 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 14×
  A district court's discovery order compelling production of documents is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as effective review can be obtained after sanctions are imposed for non-compliance.
• United States v. Williams
  459 F.2d 909· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a motion for the return of seized property is a final decision, immediately appealable, when no criminal prosecution is pending against the movant.
• Abel v. Miller
  904 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior appellate decision on qualified immunity is final and does not permit a second appeal, even if the law has allegedly changed or new arguments are presented.
• Millmen Local 550, United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Wells Exterior Trim
  828 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 12×
  An arbitrator's decision determining liability but reserving jurisdiction to determine the remedy in the future is not a final and binding award reviewable by courts under section 301 of the LMRA.
• Carteret Sav. Bank v. Shushan
  919 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits a district court to transfer a case to another district even over the plaintiff's objection, provided the transfer is in the interest of justice and the case could have been brought in the transferee district.
• Anne Powers v. Lightner
  752 F.2d 1251· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 10×
  Pretrial denials of qualified immunity are not immediately appealable interlocutory orders.
• The Cincinnati GAS & Elec. Co. & the Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Benjamin F. Shaw Co.
  706 F.2d 155· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 10×
  An order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court did not err in determining arbitrability without an evidentiary hearing.
• Dayco Corp. v. Foreign Transactions Corp.
  705 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 10×
  An order refusing to confirm an attachment pursuant to New York law is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if it involves only a factual determination and no novel legal questions.
• State OF Ariz. v. Manypenny
  608 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the state's appeal because no statute authorizes a state to appeal a criminal case removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Independence Drilling Corp.
  595 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 10×
  A district court cannot assess the costs of a receivership against the SEC, an agency of the United States, absent statutory authorization and contrary to express statutory command.
• United States v. Perkins
  433 F.2d 1182· D.C. Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a motion for mental competency examinations prior to a removal hearing is not an appealable collateral order because the issue of the arrestee's ability to assist counsel is not sufficiently important to warrant interlocutory review.
• Richardson v. United States & Don's Chem. Co., Inc.
  336 F.2d 265· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The appeal must be dismissed because the orders appealed from were not final decisions and the appeal was premature.