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

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

• Bergstrom v. Sears
  599 F.2d 62· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's determination that the invention was not "on sale" more than one year before the patent application filing date was legally correct.
• United States v. 5.96 Acres OF Land
  593 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 8×
  Structures built under revocable permits in navigable waters, even if damaged by government projects, do not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. Exculpatory clauses in such permits are valid.
• Chateau de Ville Prods., Inc. v. Tams-Witmark Music Library, Inc.
  586 F.2d 962· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court prematurely certified the plaintiff class without adequate discovery on issues of representation.
• State OF NEW Mexico ex rel. S. E. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. OF Am.
  570 F.2d 1364· 10th Cir.· 1978-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the State Engineer's conditions on water use, including acreage limitations, were binding on Molycorp because they were pertinent to preventing impairment of existing rights and Molycorp failed to appeal or properly challenge them.
• Standard OIL Co. v. Montedison
  540 F.2d 611· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 8×
  A district court, in its discretion, may permit a party to raise issues of fraud in a patent interference proceeding for the first time in a subsequent 35 U.S.C. § 146 action, even if those issues were not raised before the Board of Patent Interferences, provided the fraud could
• United States v. Lamars Dairy, Inc.
  500 F.2d 84· 7th Cir.· 1974-07-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that defendants must exhaust administrative remedies before raising defenses in a suit to enforce a milk order.
• Ernst & Ernst v. United States Dist. Court FOR the S. Dist. OF Tex.
  439 F.2d 1288· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court withheld decision on the petition for mandamus, ordering further proceedings in the District Court to clarify threshold issues regarding federal jurisdiction and class action maintainability.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. R. E. Dietz Co.
  420 F.2d 1303· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·cited 8×
  A party seeking review of a Patent Office priority determination under 35 U.S.C. § 146 cannot amend their complaint to include objections to patentability, such as public use or sale.
• Galt v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. & F. H. Sparks Co., Inc.
  397 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award while reserving questions regarding the payment clause for judicial decision, as the award was not definite due to the omission of the payment clause.
• Am. Concrete Agric. Pipe Ass'n v. No-Joint Concrete Pipe Co.
  331 F.2d 706· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of venue is interlocutory and not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that review by writ of mandamus was not warranted in this case.
• Wyandotte Chems. Corp. v. City OF Wyandotte
  321 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments, thus barring federal intervention under the Johnson Act.
• Lewis v. Hogwood
  300 F.2d 697· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court erred in transferring the case because the action could not have been brought in the transferee district court under Tennessee law.
• Oskoian v. Theobald J. Canuel
  269 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1959-08-03 ·cited 8×
  A federal court may use Rule 23(a)(1) to allow a class action against all members of an unincorporated association, even if state law prohibits such binding class actions, provided the suit enforces a substantive right under state law.
• Wilhen Hill Barrientos v. Corecivic, Inc.
  951 F.3d 1269· 11th Cir.· 2020-02-28 ·cited 7×
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) applies to private contractors operating federal immigration detention facilities, and such contractors can be liable if they obtain labor through illegal coercive means, even within a federally mandated work program.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT Warsaw v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze (LOT Polish Airlines)
  748 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 7×
  An airline cannot invoke the Warsaw Convention's liability limitation if its own tickets fail to provide adequate warning of that limitation, even if domestic carriers provided proper notice.
• Russ Togs, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp.
  426 F.2d 850· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a government antitrust enforcement action continues to pend for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations until the expiration of the time to appeal the final decree resolving all issues of liability and relief.
• Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 6×
  A dismissal with prejudice based on a statute of limitations in one federal diversity action has res judicata effect on a duplicative action filed in another federal district court.
• Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
  834 F.2d 1517· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the five-year federal statute of limitations applies to Clean Water Act citizen enforcement suits, and the statute is tolled sixty days before the complaint is filed. It also held that administrative enforcement actions by a state agency do not bar citizen sui
• G.P. Reed v. United Transp. Union
  828 F.2d 1066· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The six-month limitations period provided in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act applies to claims brought under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
• Tick v. Cohen
  787 F.2d 1490· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 6×
  The beneficiaries of land trusts are indispensable parties in an action seeking broad relief affecting the trusts, and dismissal is appropriate if their joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction and an adequate alternative forum exists.
• Royal v. McKENNA
  747 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-06 ·cited 6×
  A district court lacks the statutory authority to order notice to potential class members in suits brought under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), and plaintiffs' counsel cannot send such notices to encourage joinder due to ethical concerns regarding solicitation.
• Crimpers Promotions Inc. v. Home BOX Off., Inc.
  724 F.2d 290· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 6×
  A company organized to facilitate direct dealings between producers and cable stations has standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act to sue for injuries resulting from a boycott of its trade show, even if it is not a direct competitor in the programming market.
• Curtis v. United Transp. Union
  648 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) does not toll the statute of limitations, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) does not create an exception to this rule.
• Franquez v. United States
  604 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 6×
• Blackburn v. Goodwin
  608 F.2d 919· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 6×
  28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) does not apply to personal damage actions against federal officials in their individual capacities.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The Honorable Miles W. Lord
  585 F.2d 860· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mandamus is not available to review the district court's discretionary orders regarding class certification or EEOC intervention, as these are not final decisions and do not constitute an abuse of judicial power.
• Mrs. Carnell Russ v. Ratliff
  578 F.2d 221· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add the City as a defendant, as the amendment would not relate back under Rule 15(c) due to prejudice and lack of mistake.
• United States v. Haskins
  505 F.2d 246· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 6×
  A claimant may pursue a placer mining claim under 30 U.S.C. § 38 based on prior possession, but cannot rely on mineral deposits previously found to be non-valuable in lode formation due to res judicata. The case is remanded to the Department of the Interior for administrative pro
• Weber v. Secretary OF Health
  503 F.2d 1049· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that referring Social Security review cases to a magistrate for recommendation is within the intended authority of the Magistrate Act and does not violate the Social Security Act or the Constitution.
• United States & Paul T. Boyll v. Monsey
  429 F.2d 1348· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal from a discovery order in an IRS summons enforcement action is unwarranted when subsequent events, such as a criminal indictment and postponement of civil claims, render the discovery moot.
• Lewis v. Lewis
  358 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the corporations were indispensable parties and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking as to them, requiring dismissal of claims against them.
• Bettie M. Scholl v. Dist. OF Columbia
  331 F.2d 1018· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenge to the legality of the taking due to the absence of a timely appeal from the District Court's final order. The court also affirmed the judgment as to just compensation.
• Gopher OIL Co., Inc. v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  955 F.2d 519· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of fraud and 100% liability for cleanup costs, but remanded for recalculation of attorney fees and determination of fraud damages.
• Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc.
  932 F.2d 1043· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 5×
  Compliance with Local Rules is a prerequisite to timely filing a notice of removal, but district courts have discretion to excuse non-compliance based on fairness.
• Hayes v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  821 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 5×
  A federal district court sitting in one state lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute concerning title to real property located in another state, as this constitutes a local action.
• Robinson v. Power Pizza, Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the defendant's refusal to deliver food to the predominantly African-American community of American Beach, while delivering to the predominantly Caucasian community of Amelia Island Planta
• McDonough v. Americom Int'l Corp.
  905 F. Supp. 1016· M.D. Fla.· 1995-10-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the independence and good faith of the special litigation committee, and that the statute of limitations did not bar the federal or state securities claims. The court also found that the plaintiff adequately re
• Westwood Pharms., Inc. v. Nat'l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp.
  964 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the phrase "in connection with a contractual relationship" in CERCLA requires more than a mere contract; the contract must relate to hazardous substances or grant control. Additionally, CERCLA § 101(35)(C) does not preclude previous landowners from asserting t
• In re Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n, Inc.
  949 F.2d 1165· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 4×
  A blanket reference of a civil case, including trial of liability issues, to a special master over a party's objection exceeds the district court's authority under Rule 53.
• Sierra Club & Colo. Env't Coal. v. Lujan
  931 F.2d 1421· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 4×
  Congress waived the United States' sovereign immunity and authorized the assessment of civil penalties against federal agencies for violations of the Clean Water Act through the plain language of sections 1323(a) and 1365(a).
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler
  904 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in interpreting California Civil Procedure Code § 877(a) to allow a setoff based on the settling defendant's stipulated liability rather than the amount stipulated for reduction of claims or consideration paid.
• Herschel W. Peterson & First Midwest Bank v. Sealed AIR Corp.
  902 F.2d 1232· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 4×
  Notice to a corporation's registered agent for service of process, even if the agent is not an employee and the corporation is not explicitly named in the original complaint, constitutes notice to the corporation for the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) relation b
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co. OF Ill.
  877 F.2d 590· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the venue provision for suits against the FDIC as receiver (12 U.S.C. § 94) applies even when the United States is named as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that third-party actions are not exempt from this venue rule.
• In re Wyo. Tight Sands Antitrust Cases. State OF Kan. v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  866 F.2d 1286· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 4×
  Indirect purchasers of natural gas cannot maintain an antitrust suit against alleged violators because they are not the direct purchasers and do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the rule established in Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick.
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings IN Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig. M.D.L. No. 150. Appeal of City OF Long Beach & State of Cal. Chevron Corp.
  788 F.2d 1571· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the interlocutory appeal in TECA No. 9-87 should be dismissed without prejudice due to subsequent final judgments and changed circumstances, and that appeals in Nos. 9-93 and 9-94 were untimely due to a pending post-judgment motion.
• Beloit Power Sys., Inc. v. Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp.
  757 F.2d 1431· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 4×
  Litwin is required to indemnify Hess for Hess's own tort liability arising from the worker's injury, but not for contractual liabilities Hess owes to a third party.
• Fletcher v. Gagosian
  604 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 4×
  A unilateral dismissal of remaining claims by a plaintiff does not convert a prior interlocutory order into a final, appealable decision.
• J. P. Stevens Emps. Educ. Comm. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  582 F.2d 326· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 4×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to review National Labor Relations Board action in an ongoing administrative proceeding before the entry of a final order.
• Burch v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  554 F.2d 633· 4th Cir.· 1977-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that allegations of injury to the general economy of a state are sufficient to confer standing upon the state's Attorney General to sue for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act in a parens patriae capacity.
• Caleshu v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin
  549 F.2d 93· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that venue for individual tax refund suits against the United States is proper only in the plaintiff's district of residence, and a transfer for convenience is not permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(2).