Interlocutory Decree

145 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Courtney v. Warner
  290 So. 2d 101· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-02-22 ·cited 14×
  In this child support enforcement case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a plaintiff's petition to enforce a Tennessee child support modification decree. The court held that although the defendant was a serviceman protected by the Soldiers' and
• Upper Miss. Towing Corp. v. West
  338 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss a complaint is not a final decision and is not appealable as an interlocutory injunction, as it does not affect substantive rights.
• Wieczorek v. Williams
  71 So. 2d 262· Fla.· 1954-03-23 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not timely filed and the lower court's attempt to extend the time for appeal was ineffective.
• Cleary Bros. v. Christie Scow Corp. (American President Lines
  176 F.2d 370· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the production of witness statements to counsel without a showing of necessity, and that the dismissal order was final and appealable.
• Bee Mach. Co., Inc. v. Freeman
  131 F.2d 190· 1st Cir.· 1942-11-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a federal court, after removing a state court action, can allow an amendment to add a claim over which the state court lacked jurisdiction but the federal court possesses, as long as the original action was properly removable. The court also held that a prior
• Hale v. Yeager
  57 Fla. 442· Fla.· 1909-01-01 ·cited 14×
  This case involves an appeal from an interlocutory decree in a partition suit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decree, finding that the allegations in the bill of complaint sufficiently established the parties' rights and interests for partition, especially given t
• Lawson v. United States. Retz V. United States
  192 F.2d 479· 2d Cir.· 1951-11-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a 'putative wife' is not a 'wife' or 'dependent relative' under the Death on the High Seas Act, and thus cannot recover damages.
• The Rocona v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.
  173 F.2d 661· 9th Cir.· 1949-04-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of negligence were supported by substantial evidence, including circumstantial evidence that outweighed the tug crew's direct testimony.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated December 10 v. United States
  926 F.2d 847· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in partially denying motions to quash grand jury subpoenas and for the return of property seized, affirming the issuance of warrants and subpoenas under the circumstances.
• Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Bluewater P'ship
  772 F.2d 565· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Pacific's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it failed to appeal the final judgment. The court affirmed the judgment for Sea-First against other lien claimants, finding Sea-First met the statutory requirements to act as a ship mortgage trust
• Houston OIL Field Material Co., Inc. v. Robbins M. Claypool and David M. Best
  269 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1959-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patent claims at issue were invalid due to lack of invention and prior public disclosure, and therefore could not be infringed.
• Jones v. Schellenberger
  225 F.2d 784· 7th Cir.· 1955-09-06 ·cited 12×
  A prior decree directing an accounting in a partnership dissolution suit is not final or res judicata as to defenses raised, and federal courts must apply intervening state law, including intermediate appellate court decisions, as authoritative.
• Fid. Tr. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago
  174 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1949-05-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Court's order vacating a prior interlocutory decree was itself interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Labs., Inc.
  155 F.2d 59· 4th Cir.· 1946-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the original interpretation of the injunction, protecting the plaintiff's product color, should be enforced, and the defendants' attempt to narrow its scope was improper.
• In re Diversey BLDG. Corp. Diversey BLDG. Corp. v. Metro. Tr. Co.
  141 F.2d 65· 7th Cir.· 1944-02-29 ·cited 12×
  A debtor cannot seek a radical change to a confirmed reorganization plan that has been in effect for years, as statutory provisions for modification are intended for minor adjustments, not fundamental alterations of established rights.
• Mattair v. Leopold Furchgott
  44 Fla. 620· Fla.· 1902-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from interlocutory decrees in an equity action because the appeal was not timely filed and the order complained of in the second assignment of error was not included in the transcript of record.
• Putman v. Lewis
  1 Fla. 455· Fla.· 1847-01-01 ·cited 12×
  The court considered whether an appeal could be taken from an interlocutory decree in a partition suit. The court held that a bill of review is only appropriate after a final decree and that the decree in this case was interlocutory, thus the application for a bill of review was
• Iordanis Anastasiadis v. S.S. Little John
  339 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the decree appealed from is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, and therefore, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Allen N. Spooner & SON, Inc. v. The Conn. Fire Ins. Co.
  297 F.2d 609· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the interlocutory order granting dismissal of the impleading petition was not properly before the court as it did not determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
• McGRATH v. Tadayasu ABO
  186 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that judgments should be amended to exclude defendants other than the Attorney General and those under his authority, and reversed judgments for most designated adult competent plaintiffs, remanding for further proceedings.
• Bingham Pump Co., Inc. v. Edwards
  118 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the patent claims at issue were invalid because they were anticipated by a prior patent, representing only a mere carrying forward or application of existing ideas.
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Moran Towing & Transp. Co., Inc.
  247 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1957-09-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Moran was liable for the negligence of the tugboat it hired as a subcontractor because Moran had contracted to perform the towage service, not merely act as a broker. The court also found that Todd was not guilty of laches.
• Mason v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist.
  126 F.2d 921· 9th Cir.· 1942-03-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that an alleged error not specified in the brief or argued until oral argument will not be considered on appeal.
• Captain Manuel Salazar & the Crew of the Vessel "Atlantic SUN" & Salem Port Auth. v. The "Atlantic SUN
  881 F.2d 73· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the shipowner failed to demonstrate a due process violation regarding a post-arrest hearing and waived any right to release the vessel on bond by their actions and delays.
• Caballero v. Major E. Threlkeld
  142 So. 2d 124· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's liability involved triable issues that could not be resolved on summary judgment.
• Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. THE Exmouth
  253 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-15 ·cited 8×
• Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Haines City
  117 F.2d 574· 5th Cir.· 1941-02-12 ·cited 8×
  A confirmed debt composition plan, even if interlocutory, cannot be modified to the detriment of a dissenting creditor without a compelling reason, especially after partial execution.
• Albritton v. Scott
  73 Fla. 856· Fla.· 1917-04-06 ·cited 7×
  Scott brought suit to cancel a forced sale of his homestead property and enforce a prior contract with Albritton. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree canceling the sheriff's sale and ordering referral to a Master in Chancery to determine the equities betwe
• Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co.
  310 F.R.D. 529· S.D. Fla.· 2015-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the proposed class definition was ascertainable and that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements for class certification were met, allowing the case to proceed as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3).
• In re White Cloud Charter Boat Co. v. White Cloud Charter Boat Co., Inc.
  813 F.2d 1513· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 6×
  An appeal from an interlocutory decree in an admiralty proceeding is timely if filed within 30 days of the decree, as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) supplants the prior 15-day statutory limit. The trial court's findings that the defendant's negligence was the sole pr
• Francis v. Forest OIL Corp.
  798 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 6×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable interlocutory decree under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because it does not determine the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties.
• Hollywood Marine, Inc. v. M/V Artie James
  755 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's ruling on an insurer's coverage was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory decree, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Slatton v. Martin K. EBY Constr. Co., Inc.
  491 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-05 ·cited 6×
  An order granting a new trial solely on the issue of damages is not an appealable interlocutory decree in an admiralty case under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
• Cenac Towing Co., Inc. v. Keystone Shipping Co.
  404 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the trial court's interlocutory decree, finding that both the tugs and the tanker were at fault and contributed to the stranding.
• Atl. Pipe Line Co. v. Dredge Philadelphia
  366 F.2d 780· 3d Cir.· 1966-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's interlocutory decree, finding no clear error in the factual findings or legal conclusions.
• Annice A. Justice v. VAN Eepoel
  113 So. 2d 545· Fla.· 1959-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered whether a trial court (Chancellor) retained jurisdiction to enforce a custody decree after the appellant filed a notice of appeal. The Court held that absent a supersedeas bond, the trial court retains power to enforce an un-superseded decree,
• Horton & Horton, Inc. v. THE S/S Robert E. Hopkins
  269 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the collision was due to the faults of both vessels and the barge's improper lighting, allocating damages accordingly.
• McLAIN Lines, Inc. v. The Ann Marie Tracy. the Mavis
  176 F.2d 709· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the libellant is not foreclosed from raising the issue of the tug's liability on this appeal, despite not assigning error on a prior appeal, because the prior appeal did not adjudicate the tug's liability.
• Lehman Co. of Am., Inc. v. Appleton TOY & Furniture Co.
  148 F.2d 988· 7th Cir.· 1945-04-11 ·cited 6×
  A district court cannot modify a final, unappealed decree after the time for appeal has expired, solely based on a subsequent decision by a higher court invalidating the patent between different parties.
• Kelley v. Everglades Drainage Dist.
  132 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plan for composition of debts was fair, equitable, and in the best interest of creditors, and did not unfairly discriminate.
• United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Mathey
  117 F.2d 331· 1st Cir.· 1941-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims 2, 4, and 16 of the plaintiff's patent for a shoe heel flap trimming machine were valid and infringed by the defendant's machine. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs due to a late disclaimer.
• Jacksonville v. Adams
  29 Fla. 260· Fla.· 1892-01-01 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an order dismissing a condemnation proceeding on constitutional grounds is appealable to the Supreme Court, rejecting the argument that such orders cannot be entered in the chancery order book or appealed. The decision clarifies that condemnati
• Henry D. Darden & wife v. Lines
  2 Fla. 569· Fla.· 1849-01-01 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court was divided on whether it had appellate jurisdiction to review cases brought on "pro forma" decrees made by consent in the lower court when the trial judge was disqualified from sitting in the appellate court. Chief Justice Douglas held the Court lacked
• Alleman v. Bunge Corp.
  756 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that an appeal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) is only permissible if the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction has been invoked. Since the plaintiffs chose to bring their action in state court under the savings to suitors clause, and the action was removed to fed
• Wright v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Broward Cnty.
  142 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1944-05-08 ·cited 5×
• Petition of J. E. Brenneman Co. For Exoneration From or Limitation of Liab. J. E. Brenneman Co.
  312 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1963-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant did not waive its right to challenge the claimants' status as real parties in interest, and that the issue should not have been postponed until after liability was determined.
• Cruden v. State Bank OF Apopka
  136 So. 2d 357· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order of November 8, 1960, was not a final decree, and therefore, the Chancellor did not err in granting a rehearing.
• The Tex. Co. v. R. O'Brien & Co., Inc.
  225 F.2d 280· 1st Cir.· 1955-08-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the overtaking vessel (Ventura) was solely at fault for the collision, as it violated the rule requiring overtaking vessels to keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel.
• Dwyer v. Dwyer
  72 So. 2d 378· Fla.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×
  William Dwyer obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce in California, which Helen Dwyer then used as grounds to obtain a final decree in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court held that an interlocutory California divorce decree is not a final decree and therefore cannot satisfy t
• Alltmont v. United States
  174 F.2d 931· 3d Cir.· 1949-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the interlocutory decree was improperly drawn and did not accurately reflect the issue decided by the district court.