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

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

• Powers v. The Chicago Transit Auth.
  890 F.2d 1355· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit and the finding of contempt, but reduced the amount of accrued fines.
• McCOWAN v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
  889 F.2d 451· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court's orders because neither order constituted a final decision, and the order compelling arbitration was specifically barred from interlocutory appeal by the Arbitration Act.
• Cheng v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Serv.
  878 F.2d 306· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Tax Court's order granting partial summary judgment, despite a stipulation to create a final order, did not conclusively end the litigation on the merits, thus failing the finality requirement for appellate
• In re United States
  872 F.2d 472· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court's order denying a writ of mandamus to dismiss the complaint was correct, the order directing parties to proceed with discovery should be vacated because further discovery would inevitably lead to disclosure of information protected by
• In re Subpoenas TO Local 478
  708 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to terminate the grand jury investigation and the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas are not appealable orders, but the denial of the motion for return of documents is a final, appealable order.
• United States & Gene E. Turley v. Jones
  581 F.2d 816· 10th Cir.· 1978-08-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal from a magistrate's order enforcing an IRS summons is not properly before the court of appeals because the magistrate's order is not a final judgment of the district court.
• Va. Nat'l Bank v. Commonwealth OF Va. ex rel. State Corp. Comm'n
  448 F.2d 425· 4th Cir.· 1971-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's order restricting the presentation of evidence in a separate pending case was not an appealable order.
• Burns v. Watler
  931 F.2d 140· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 7×
  An order granting a stay of federal proceedings pending resolution of a parallel state court action is immediately appealable if the state court judgment would have res judicata effect, precluding further litigation in federal court.
• 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.
• Mayacamas Corp. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
  806 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 6×
• U.S.A. v. Brook Contracting Corp. (D.C. Civil No. 82-1362)
  759 F.2d 320· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that "coal produced by surface coal mining" under the SMCRA refers only to combustible coal, excluding the weight of rock, clay, dirt, and other debris, for the purpose of calculating the reclamation fee.
• Bowe v. First OF Denver Mortg. Invs.
  613 F.2d 798· 10th Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The dismissal of a class representative's complaint for lack of prosecution does not render the prior order denying class certification appealable, as it does not create a final judgment for purposes of appellate review.
• Aerco Int'l, Inc. v. Vapor Corp.
  608 F.2d 518· C.C.P.A.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's denial of a motion to amend an answer to include a counterclaim for cancellation is not a final, appealable decision.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of John DOE
  831 F.2d 222· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of a Rule 41(e) motion and the denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena are nonappealable interlocutory orders.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena FOR Attorney Representing Criminal
  926 F.2d 1423· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court's denial of a contempt motion is a final decision, the appeals of the attorney and intervenor were moot because the district court ultimately ruled in their favor, granting them the relief they sought.
• United States v. Siddharth Shanabhai Shah
  878 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that orders denying motions to dismiss an indictment or compel grand jury discovery are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine when the alleged defects are not fundamental.
• United States v. Helmsley
  866 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 4×
  Interlocutory appeals are not permitted for pre-trial rulings on alleged violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) concerning grand jury secrecy.
• In re Fed. Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. DOE
  760 F.2d 436· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's order denying as premature a motion for grand jury transcripts was appealable and that the denial was proper because no witness had yet testified in the disciplinary proceeding, thus providing no basis to assess particularized need.
• Barcelo v. Brown
  655 F.2d 458· 1st Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of the fishermen's motion to quash an investigation into transcript fees was not a final or collateral order, and thus not appealable. The court also noted that the district court lacked the power to order affirmative expenditure by the United State
• United States v. Shaw
  655 F.2d 168· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's order vacating Shaw's guilty plea was appealable and constituted vindictive prosecution, reversing the lower court's decision.
• In re Federal Grand Jury Investigation of Robert H. Fendler Robert H. Fendler v. United States
  597 F.2d 1314· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the interlocutory order denying a petition to conduct voir dire of grand jurors is not immediately appealable.
• Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty. Fla.
  947 F.3d 1362· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a property owner's testimony regarding the value of her land, based on her personal knowledge and experience, is admissible lay opinion testimony. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the award of attorney's fees and costs because the amount ha
• S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival AIR Lines, Inc.
  986 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order awarding attorney's fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain, and affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract claims based on a valid release.
• Dove v. Atl. Cap. Corp.
  963 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contempt citation, even without imposed sanctions, is sufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order.
• Primas v. The City OF Okla. City
  958 F.2d 1506· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Mr. Primas failed to state a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest and that Mr. Pennington was entitled to summary judgment, reversing denials of summary judgment in both cases.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. V & M Mgmt., Inc.
  929 F.2d 830· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the remand order was not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), appellate review was only possible via writ of mandamus, which was denied due to lack of a clear right to relief.
• Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dirty Work Unlimited
  919 F.2d 491· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the turnover order because it was a final, immediately appealable decision that was not timely appealed, and affirmed the civil contempt order as a proper enforcement mechanism.
• Union Switch & Signal Div. Am. Standard Inc. v. United Elec.
  900 F.2d 608· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had "prudential" jurisdiction to review a non-final award of an arbitrator under § 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, despite a prior conflicting precedent.
• United States v. Juvenile Female
  869 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss based on 18 U.S.C. § 5032 is appealable as a collateral order, but the court affirmed the district court's denial because § 5032 does not bar federal prosecution after tribal court proceedings.
• United States v. Tino Fiumara
  605 F.2d 116· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for a stay or injunction to exclude the public from his sentencing hearing pending appeal or mandamus consideration would be denied.
• Petition of the Trs. OF the Joint Welf. Fund OF the Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Nolan
  549 F.2d 871· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the order denying a motion to modify a prior order appointing a special master is not a final decision and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Ginsburg v. Bonn Kraus Ginsburg and John Paul Ginsburg
  276 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal, though misstating the order appealed from, can be construed as an appeal from the final judgment if the intent is clear and no substantial rights are affected.
• S.S. v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  43 F.4th 1165· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-05 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court's order remanding an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claim to an administrative agency for a due process hearing is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Am. Haw. Cruises v. Skinner
  D.D.C.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 1×
  A district court's order remanding a case to an agency for further proceedings, even if coupled with dismissal of the civil action, is not a final decision and is not immediately appealable.
• In re Subpoena Served on the Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  892 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the CPUC could not invoke the attorney work product privilege under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) as it was not a party to the litigation, and that California's deliberative process and official information privileges did not apply to the requested documents.
• Sanchez v. Disc. Rock & Sand, Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2023-10-25
  A jury awarded nearly $12 million to the estates of four women killed in a rear-end collision caused by a Discount Rock & Sand employee, finding the company liable for both vicarious liability and negligent entrustment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district cou
• Crain v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  918 F.3d 1294· 11th Cir.· 2019-03-22
  The court held that a motion to substitute counsel in a pending § 2254 proceeding is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or the collateral-order doctrine.
• Rosario Ramirez v. FOX Television Station, Inc.
  998 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-14
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning the attorney for filing the same motion twice with a changed title.
• Blazak v. Ricketts
  971 F.2d 1408· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-04
  The court held that a district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus, vacating a conviction and allowing the state to retry the petitioner, constitutes a final and appealable judgment, even if sentencing issues remain unresolved.
• United States v. Tsosie
  966 F.2d 1357· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-12
  Dismissal of an indictment without prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act is not a final decision and is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• United States v. Kane
  955 F.2d 110· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-29
  An order denying a criminal defendant's application for appointment of counsel is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Thomas v. Cassidy
  950 F.2d 381· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-03
  The court held that an appeal from a district court's denial of sanctions against some parties, while a decision on sanctions against another party is still pending, is not a final and appealable order.