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

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

• Holliday v. Xerox Corp.
  732 F.2d 548· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that transferring pension funds between accounts and using them as a setoff against a guaranteed minimum pension does not violate ERISA's prohibition against employer benefit.
• Alexander v. Youngstown Bd. OF Educ.
  675 F.2d 787· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants did not intentionally operate an illegally segregated school system, despite some evidence of disproportionate teacher assignments.
• JePhunneh Lawrence v. Staats
  640 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 14×
  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employees of the General Accounting Office (GAO) only if they are in the competitive service, not the excepted service.
• Broadbent v. Org. OF Am. States
  628 F.2d 27· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 14×
  The employment of internal administrative staff by an international organization is a non-commercial activity, and thus such organizations are immune from suit for disputes arising from this employment, absent a waiver.
• Varo v. Comprehensive Designers, Inc.
  504 F.2d 1103· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order staying proceedings to compel arbitration of antitrust claims is appealable and that arbitration should be stayed pending resolution of the antitrust claims due to the strong possibility of a Sherman Act violation.
• Mrs. Gertwyl Amakyi Gamble v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co.
  486 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) cases, which are explicitly made non-removable by statute, cannot be removed to federal court even when joined with a removable third-party claim.
• Steele v. Wiedemann Mach. Co.
  280 F.2d 380· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the purchase order for a replacement safety lever was admissible evidence, even though it was made after the accident, because the owner who made the purchase was not a party to the suit and the evidence was relevant to show a condition existing at the time of
• Robinson v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  777 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) of the NLRA should be borrowed and applied to claims brought under section 2, Fourth of the RLA, due to federal labor policy favoring uniformity and speed.
• Mich. Chem. Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  728 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge holds that an occurrence under an insurance policy should be determined by the time damage resulted, not the time of the negligent act.
• The State OF Tex. v. United States Steel Corp.
  546 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the State must demonstrate a particularized need to obtain grand jury documents from defendants, even if the defendants already possess transcripts of their employees' testimony.
• Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Reese
  507 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-03 ·cited 13×
  A class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is not limited by the "like or related" standard required for Title VII claims, as § 1981 provides an independent remedy.
• Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  958 F.2d 320· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Railroad Safety Act preempts state common law negligence claims regarding railroad grade crossing safety devices once the Secretary of Transportation adopts a standard, such as the MUTCD.
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  945 F.2d 1188· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 12×
  A party who settles and releases all claims against a defendant is disqualified from appealing a denial of class certification, and if no other party is specified in the notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd.
  885 F.2d 1406· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 12×
  An antitrust plaintiff serving process under § 12 of the Clayton Act may establish venue under the Alien Venue Act, and personal jurisdiction over alien defendants can be based on their national contacts with the United States.
• Abron v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.
  654 F.2d 951· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot represent a class if they have not suffered the same type of injury as the class members they purport to represent.
• Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc.
  548 F.2d 452· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Aviation Act does not imply a private cause of action for aircraft owners seeking to recover economic losses incurred due to compliance with air safety regulations.
• Slade v. Shearson
  517 F.2d 398· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal from an order denying partial summary judgment was improvidently granted due to unresolved factual issues and the complexity of the legal questions presented. The court declined to answer the certified question or make any other legal d
• Breen AIR Freight, Ltd. v. AIR Cargo, Inc.
  470 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 12×
  The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply because the agreements at issue were not executed by 'air carriers' and thus cannot be immunized by the CAB from antitrust laws.
• The Chateau Lafayette Apts., Inc. v. The Meadow Brook Nat'l Bank
  416 F.2d 301· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an amended complaint seeking to cancel or reform a mortgage on immovable property, even if based on a usurious note, constitutes a local action for venue purposes under Louisiana law.
• Hewlett Akers v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  378 F.2d 78· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-05 ·cited 12×
  Denial of a transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was an abuse of discretion, and mandamus should issue to compel the transfer.
• Nicholson v. CPC Int'l Inc.
  877 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 11×
  An employee cannot prospectively waive their right to a judicial forum for claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) through an arbitration clause in an employment contract.
• Garo Lauderback v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  741 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 11×
  Statements made about the plaintiff in a broadcast were protected expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact, and thus not defamatory.
• English v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  465 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the district court was justified in finding that white employees should be joined under Rule 19(a), its remedy of staying the action was improper; the court should have ordered joinder.
• Joyner v. F & B Enters.
  448 F.2d 1185· D.C. Cir.· 1971-07-28 ·cited 11×
  The insurer is not a real party in interest because under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, payment of benefits without a formal award creates subrogation rights only against the employee's recovery, not directly against the third-party tortfeasor.
• Johnson v. Burken
  930 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 10×
  The court holds that while it may vacate an interlocutory appeal granted under section 1292(b) if the certified question is not controlling, it is not required to do so.
• In re Joint E. & S. Dist. NEW York Asbestos Litig. Elvira Grispo as Adm'x of the Est. of Joseph Grispo v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.
  897 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government contractor defense shields a supplier from state law liability if the United States approved precise specifications, the product conformed, and the supplier warned the U.S. of known dangers not known to the U.S.
• England v. ITT Thompson Indus., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1518· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 10×
  Venue is proper in any division where a corporate defendant is incorporated, licensed to do business, or doing business, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for change of venue.
• Derstein v. van Buren
  828 F.2d 653· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Garcia decision, which established a two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, should not be applied retroactively to this case where the cause of action accrued before Garcia but the suit was filed after Garcia.
• Edwardsville Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Marion Labs., Inc.
  808 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Indiana court correctly applied Indiana law and dismissed the case, even if the transfer ground was misstated by the transferor court.
• Ridgway v. Wapello Cnty.
  795 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Garcia should not be applied retroactively to bar the plaintiff's § 1983 action.
• Conservation Council OF N.C. v. Col. Albert C. Costanzo
  528 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving a temporary injunction and denying further temporary injunctive relief pending environmental review.
• Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
  510 F.2d 486· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while nonprofit hospitals may qualify for the Robinson-Patman Act exemption, this exemption does not extend to drugs purchased for resale to private consumers, as such resales do not constitute the hospital's 'own use'.
• H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Nicholson File Co.
  482 F.2d 421· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides a private right of action for damages to a tender offeror, and that this is the exclusive remedy for the claims presented, superseding a Section 10(b) claim which requires purchaser-seller status.
• Elinor M. Ratay v. The Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  405 F.2d 286· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-31 ·cited 10×
  A federal appellate court's prior decision on the law of the case is binding on the trial court on remand, even if a subsequent state court decision merely reiterates existing law, not a new rule, and does not clearly alter the established state law principle.
• Miss. River Fuel Corp. v. Slayton
  359 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1966-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission has primary jurisdiction over railroad consolidations, and federal law, specifically the Interstate Commerce Act, preempts state law and corporate charter provisions regarding shareholder voting requirements for such consolid
• Benton Harbor Malleable Indus. v. Int'l Union
  355 F.2d 70· 6th Cir.· 1966-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an authorized appeal.
• Charles Dowd BOX Co., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  303 F.2d 57· 1st Cir.· 1962-05-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims arising from a single loss under multiple insurance policies with interlocking clauses are not 'separate and independent' for removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Stanley v. United States
  549 F. Supp. 327· S.D. Fla.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that FTCA claims against the government are barred by the Feres doctrine, and Bivens claims against the government are barred by sovereign immunity, but Bivens claims against individual agents are not time-barred and may proceed.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance et D'Armement
  451 F.2d 727· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while a Franco-Swiss treaty does not bar suits between nationals of those countries in U.S. courts under Rule 17(b), comity requires dismissal of a contract claim lacking federal jurisdiction, but not an antitrust claim due to overriding U.S. public policy.
• Watson v. Shell OIL Co. & Brown & Root
  979 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's interlocutory orders defining the class and establishing a multi-phase trial plan, finding no error or abuse of discretion in managing the mass-tort litigation.
• In re Cinematronics, Inc. v. Electronic Sports Research
  916 F.2d 1444· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 8×
  Bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials in noncore proceedings, and claims against a non-debtor in his individual capacity are noncore. A Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on such claims must be heard in the district court.
• Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc.
  893 F.2d 541· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider post-1965 conduct for comparative fault on the failure to warn claim and in its jury instructions on the express warranty claim. A new trial is ordered for the failure to warn claim.
• Ministry OF Def. OF the Islamic Republic OF Iran v. Gould Inc.
  887 F.2d 1357· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 8×
  An award from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal falls under the New York Convention, granting federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction for its enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• In the Matter of: Bevill v. Spencer Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  878 F.2d 742· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pre-petition deliveries of securities in this repurchase agreement context constituted 'settlement payments' protected from avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 546(f), and that section 559 protects a repo participant's right to liquidate the agreement.
• United States v. Progressive Farmers Mktg. Agency
  788 F.2d 1327· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 8×
  A livestock marketing agency acting as a commission merchant is not liable for conversion of farm products when selling them in the ordinary course of business, as they are considered inventory, not farm products, under the UCC.
• Little Earth OF United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  738 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court improperly entered final judgment under Rule 54(b) because there was no just reason for delay, and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
• Annunziato v. THE GAN, Inc.
  744 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the award of attorney's fees, finding the appellees to be prevailing parties who succeeded on a significant issue through settlement, and that The Gan became a state actor by actively defending the suit.
• Am. Commercial Barge Lines Co. v. Seafarers Int'l Union OF N. Am.
  730 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employers' claim for damages under § 302(e) of the LMRA was properly dismissed as the statute does not provide a private cause of action for damages. The court also held that the employers' request for an injunction against union strikes and bargaining dem
• COX Enters., Inc. v. Darwin Holt
  691 F.2d 989· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 8×
  Appellate courts have the authority to transfer cases directly to another district court, even when the original district court lacked jurisdiction, to serve the interests of justice.
• Voktas, Inc. v. Cent. Soya Co., Inc.
  689 F.2d 103· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to stay federal proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel state court action, as the federal court has a strong obligation to exercise its jurisdiction.