Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)

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

• Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc.
  417 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-30 ·cited 293×
  The court reversed the district court's decision, finding that the class was defined too narrowly and must be extended, but did not set precise limits at the appellate level.
• Sherwin S. Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc.
  547 F.2d 1329· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 157×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) because the 'force, intimidation, or threat' requirement does not apply to all clauses of the statute, and the statute does not require an 'invidiously discriminatory animus'.
• The Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co.
  544 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 128×
  The court held that the notes at issue were not securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as they were issued in a commercial context to finance a business, rather than for investment purposes.
• Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp.
  838 F.2d 1445· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the Keogh doctrine, which bars antitrust damage claims based on ICC-approved rates, does not apply to plaintiffs who are competitors of the defendant railroads, not customers seeking an advantage over other customers. The court also addressed other issues cert
• Briggs v. Goodwin
  569 F.2d 10· D.C. Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 115×
  The court held that a prosecutor acting as a witness in a courtroom, answering a judge's question, is performing a function intimately associated with the judicial process and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit.
• Durham v. Bus. Mgmt. Assocs.
  847 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the appellees' due diligence in discovering the alleged fraud and the applicability of Rule 10b-5 to one appellant, and that the RICO claim was adequa
• Holmes v. NEW York City Hous. Auth.
  398 F.2d 262· 2d Cir.· 1968-07-18 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the complaint stated a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the district court correctly refused to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction.
• Jackson v. City OF Joliet
  715 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 85×
  A negligent failure by state officers to save accident victims does not constitute a deprivation of life without due process of law actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Brown v. Bullock
  294 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-05 ·cited 85×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, suggests the appeal was improvidently granted and a waste of time, focusing on pleading niceties rather than substantive issues.
• Lino v. City Investing Co.
  487 F.2d 689· 3d Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the franchise agreements were not securities because the investor's efforts were significant, and the personal promissory notes did not constitute a 'purchase' or 'sale' of securities under the federal securities laws due to the commercial context.
• Chem. Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
  726 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 80×
  Commercial bank loans for current operations, even if evidenced by notes with maturities exceeding nine months, are generally not considered securities under the federal securities laws. A pledge of stock can constitute a sale for securities law purposes.
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes
  449 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the district court's default judgment and subsequent damages award, finding that the defendant's willful refusal to produce Howard Hughes for a deposition justified the severe sanction of default.
• Peners L. Griffin and Henry L. Dejerinett v. Dugger
  823 F.2d 1476· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 69×
  The dissent argues that the majority erred in holding that the plaintiff did not meet the second element of the single-filing rule, asserting that the plaintiff's claim arose out of similar discriminatory treatment.
• United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama
  797 F.2d 1154· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 69×
  Bank accounts holding funds traceable to narcotics transactions are forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), and due process does not require an immediate post-seizure probable cause hearing before trial.
• LaCHAPELLE v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  513 F.2d 286· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 69×
  Suits brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) cannot be maintained as Rule 23 class actions because ADEA incorporates the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) opt-in consent requirement, which is incompatible with Rule 23's opt-out mechanism.
• Consol. Express, Inc. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  602 F.2d 494· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 68×
  The court should not apply a per se antitrust approach if the labor exemption is found inapplicable; a rule of reason inquiry is appropriate.
• Glidden v. Chromalloy Am. Corp. & Allied Prods. Corp.
  808 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that an appeal from a grant of summary judgment is not properly before the court when a motion for class certification is still pending in the district court, as the case is not yet final.
• Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. ORG., Inc. v. City OF Clearwater
  777 F.2d 598· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 57×
  The court vacated injunctions against a repealed ordinance due to mootness, dismissed appeals of interlocutory orders regarding a successor ordinance as improvidently granted, and affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
• Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards
  669 F.2d 717· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the transactions were not 'export sales' exempt from price regulations and that Alabama's statute of limitations would frustrate federal policy, affirming the district court's decision on these points but modifying the restitution order.
• Dori Zardui-Quintana v. Richard
  768 F.2d 1213· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district director's denial of stays of deportation was not arbitrary or capricious, as the statute does not require separate findings of a "particularly serious crime" and "danger to the community" when a conviction for a particularly serious crime is esta
• In re Grand Jury Impaneled January 21 v. Cortese
  541 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 51×
  Retainer agreements filed under a local court rule, even if deemed privileged by state law, are not privileged against a federal grand jury subpoena under federal common law when balancing state interests against the need for evidence in federal investigations.
• Rena Falik v. The United States
  343 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-18 ·cited 51×
  A taxpayer cannot use an action to quiet title under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) to challenge the validity of a federal tax assessment.
• In re Consol. Pretrial Proceedings IN the Airline Cases. Appeal of Am. Airlines, Inc.
  582 F.2d 1142· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 49×
  The court held that TWA's policy of removing female flight attendants upon becoming mothers, while allowing male counterparts to remain as parents, constituted facial sex discrimination under Title VII, and that the 90-day EEOC filing period for permanent terminations is a jurisd
• Carey v. Britt Hume
  492 F.2d 631· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-28 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the constitutional grant of press freedom does not convey absolute immunity to the press for libelous publications, and that reporters should not be freed from the obligation to testify as to their sources.
• Mount Clemens Indus., Inc. v. Bell
  464 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 46×
  A plaintiff must be a purchaser or seller of securities to have standing in a private action for damages under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and the plaintiffs here did not meet that requirement.
• Time, Inc. v. McLANEY
  406 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-03 ·cited 46×
• Tessler Bros. (B.C.) Ltd. v. Italpacific Line & Matson Terminals, Inc.
  494 F.2d 438· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 45×
  A bill of lading's Himalaya clause, which extends the carrier's rights and limitations of liability to its agents and independent contractors, can validly limit a stevedore's liability, provided the intent is clearly expressed.
• Bor-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Heller
  572 F.2d 174· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Secretary of HUD may be sued under 12 U.S.C. § 1702 when claims arise from acts performed in carrying out the National Housing Act.
• Interpace Corp. v. City OF Philadelphia
  438 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle to review a district court's order permitting class actions when such review would constitute an unwarranted exercise of discretion.
• The Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner
  360 F.2d 677· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court properly declined to dismiss the complaint challenging the FDA's Color Additive Regulations regarding finished cosmetic products and the hair dye exemption, as the issues were ripe for review and the potential hardship was substantial.
• Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer v. Campbell
  358 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-11 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a Negro citizen denied the right to vote due to discriminatory registration practices and poll tax requirements has standing to bring a class action to enjoin a municipal election, and that the district court erred in failing to do so.
• Bonnot v. Cong. OF Indep. Unions Local #14
  331 F.2d 355· 8th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the collective bargaining agreement unambiguously required arbitration of the union's claims regarding recognition and membership, and thus the contractor's motion to dismiss should have been granted.
• Cont'l Grain Co. v. Fed. Barge Lines, Inc.
  268 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-30 ·cited 43×
  An in rem admiralty proceeding may be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to a district where the res is not located, provided the claimant voluntarily consents to the transfer.
• John Lenore & Co. v. Olympia Brewing Co.
  550 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-17 ·cited 42×
  A former beer distributor terminated after a manufacturer's asset acquisition lacks standing under Sections 4 and 7 of the Clayton Act if their injury is not a direct result of the anti-competitive effects of the acquisition and they are not a component of significant competitive
• Jules Link and Solomon Katz v. Mercedes-Benz OF N. Am., Inc.
  550 F.2d 860· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court should proceed to consider substantive points of an interlocutory appeal, particularly the issue of separate juries for liability and damages phases, as it presents a serious and controlling legal question.
• Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co.
  827 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-15 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court applied erroneous legal standards in denying class certification, particularly regarding the fraud-on-the-market theory and adequate representation, and thus abused its discretion.
• United States v. Fleet Factors Corp.
  901 F.2d 1550· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 40×
  A secured creditor can be liable under CERCLA if it participates in the financial management of a facility to a degree indicating a capacity to influence hazardous waste disposal decisions, even without direct involvement in day-to-day operations.
• E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Hadley
  901 F.2d 979· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 40×
  A bankruptcy trustee lacks standing to assert claims belonging to specific customer creditors when those claims are not owed to the bankrupt estate itself.
• In re N. Dist. OF Cal. v. A. H. Robins Co.
  693 F.2d 847· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in conditionally certifying both a nationwide punitive damages class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and a California statewide liability class under Rule 23(b)(3).
• Bethilda Betty Phillips v. Amoco Trinidad OIL Co.
  632 F.2d 82· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Trinidadian law, rather than the Jones Act, applies to wrongful death and personal injury claims arising from an incident on a drilling rig operating exclusively in Trinidad's territorial waters.
• In re Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. SUN Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co.
  539 F.2d 357· 4th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district judge's recusal was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact and misapprehension of law, vacating the order and remanding for reconsideration.
• Palmer v. Columbia GAS OF Ohio, Inc.
  479 F.2d 153· 6th Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 40×
  A privately owned public utility's termination of essential services, when authorized and regulated by the state, constitutes state action and must comply with due process requirements.
• Kenrose MFG. Co., Inc. v. Fred Whitaker Co., Inc.
  512 F.2d 890· 4th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 40×
  A plaintiff cannot maintain a direct claim against a third-party defendant without an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, even if the third-party defendant was initially brought into the action by another party.
• Ingram Corp. & Ingram Contractors, Inc. v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  698 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that fraudulent concealment of an antitrust conspiracy by a party negotiating a release is sufficient to void the release, even if the concealment did not involve direct misrepresentation during the release negotiations.
• In re Davis
  730 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the asbestos workers failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to extraordinary relief from the bankruptcy court's stay orders, and that adequate alternative remedies were available.
• Nedd v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  400 F.2d 103· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-09 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the union's alleged failure to enforce operator payments to a welfare fund was not a violation of the labor contract under Section 301(a), but potentially a breach of its duty of fair representation.
• In re "agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation
  635 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-24 ·cited 37×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists because the case arises under federal common law, requiring a uniform rule of product liability for veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
• Fawvor v. Texaco, Inc.
  546 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-04 ·cited 36×
  A plaintiff in a diversity case cannot assert a state-created cause of action against a third-party defendant if there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, meaning no diversity of citizenship exists between the plaintiff and the third-party defendant.
• Abelino Archuleta v. Duffy's Inc.
  471 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the amended complaint naming Duffy's Inc. did not relate back to the original filing date because Duffy's Inc. did not receive notice of the action within the statutory period, and the naming of Denver Pop Company was not a misnomer but a substitution of parti
• Wyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff
  398 F.2d 614· 2d Cir.· 1968-06-26 ·cited 36×
  A district court may sever claims against certain defendants to allow transfer of the action against remaining defendants to a more convenient forum, even if venue would not be proper in the transferee district for the severed defendants.