Interlocutory Decree

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

• State v. Sullivan
  160 Fla. 115· Fla.· 1948-02-03 ·cited 4×
  Robert James Carroll petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his commitment for civil contempt for non-payment of alimony, arguing the commitment order was vague and violated due process. The Florida Supreme Court held that contempt orders in family matters could be reviewed by
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Kickliter
  159 Fla. 516· Fla.· 1947-10-14 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an interlocutory decree that temporarily enjoined the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company from constructing a railway on certain city streets. The court denied review of a cross-appeal regarding adverse possession by another company, deferring
• W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Hart
  163 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the respondent-appellant's steamship was solely at fault for the collision due to violations of navigation rules and negligent operation.
• N.Y. Trap Rock Corp. v. Christie Scow Corp.
  162 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Moran Towing Company, despite a modified contract, retained a duty of care to protect the scow from known dangers, making it primarily liable for its sinking.
• Lack v. W. Loan & Bldg. Co.
  146 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that neither the interlocutory decree nor the subsequent order were final decisions and therefore were not appealable.
• Blaske v. Dick
  126 F.2d 96· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an appeal in admiralty was not legally perfected because the appellant failed to follow statutory requirements for applying for and obtaining an allowance of appeal.
• Lightsey v. Wash. Park Props., Inc.
  93 Fla. 531· Fla.· 1927-03-15 ·cited 4×
  This case involves a dispute over "white settlement" signs and intimidation tactics used by property owners against potential Black purchasers. The appellate court reversed the lower court's injunction, finding the decree against the weight of the evidence.
• Waitman v. Jasper Waitman
  92 Fla. 1019· Fla.· 1926-11-30 ·cited 4×
  Tom Waitman appealed a final decree obtained against him in a chancery suit, arguing that the decree was void because it was based on interlocutory orders (a decree pro confesso and order appointing a special master) entered by a judge who subsequently disqualified himself due to
• Craton Liddell v. Earline Caldwell
  553 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the defendant's motion for a stay of mandate pending certiorari, ordering the mandate to issue immediately.
• Hutton v. Walter G. Hougland, Inc.
  321 F.2d 595· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that damages should be divided equally between the two vessels at fault, with the owner of one vessel having a right of indemnity against the insurer for its share of damages and reasonable counsel fees.
• San Augustine Cnty. v. Cameron Cnty. Water Imp. Dist.
  202 F.2d 932· 5th Cir.· 1953-03-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that publication notice, in the context of a bankruptcy composition proceeding, satisfies due process requirements for unknown creditors, and the lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen final decrees.
• Key v. All Persons Claiming Any Estate
  160 Fla. 723· Fla.· 1948-07-23 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the quashing of constructive service in a quiet title action where the plaintiff sought to eliminate title clouds from wholly unknown claimants with wholly unknown claims. The Court held that the quiet title statute failed to meet due process re
• The Reiss S.S. Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
  427 F.2d 1152· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while prejudgment interest is generally within the court's discretion, it would be inequitable to award interest during specific periods of appeal and mandamus proceedings.
• Radiator Specialty Co. v. Micek
  395 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that interest on unliquidated damages should be computed from the date of ascertainment, not the interlocutory decree, and that the district court's award of attorneys' fees was not excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
• State Fire & Cas. Co. v. RED TOP Supermarkets, Inc.
  304 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because no timely appeal was filed from an appealable order.
• Dainty-Maid, Inc. v. United States
  216 F.2d 668· 6th Cir.· 1954-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss libels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is not an appealable order, and thus the appeal is dismissed.
• Rice Growers Ass'n of Cal. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Frode. the Frej
  176 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1949-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice of abandonment on June 19, 1947, validly terminated the voyage for limitation purposes, and that certain excluded items were part of the pending freight.
• Kaufman v. E. Baking Co.
  146 F.2d 826· 1st Cir.· 1945-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Massachusetts Superior Court had jurisdiction to grant an equitable lien, and that the sale enforcing this lien was not a voidable preference under the Bankruptcy Act.
• Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist. v. Mason
  143 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1944-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to issue a final decree because the district's actions did not constitute a deviation from the approved plan of composition, and the interlocutory decree was res judicata on matters not involving fraud.
• In re Town of Belleair
  127 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1942-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeals were premature because the order allowing the submission of a modified plan was not a final or interlocutory decree from which an appeal could be taken.
• Aerovias De Mexico v. v. Feltman (In Re Empresa De Transportes Aero Del Peru
  263 B.R. 367· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-26
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was an interlocutory decree and granted leave to appeal, finding substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding subject-matter jurisdiction due to the unclear status of the foreign representative.
• August J.C. Egle v. Egle
  715 F.2d 999· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-30
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the modification order of the defunct Canal Zone District Court and affirmed in part and vacated in part the modification order.
• Lindsey v. Inez L. Lindsey
  200 So. 2d 643· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-06-16
  This case concerns whether a Florida court can grant comity to an interlocutory divorce decree from California regarding child custody. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the California decree, even if not formally introduced, was part of the re
• Baird v. Baird
  192 So. 2d 342· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-15
  Rose Baird appeals from a final divorce decree and post-decretal decree regarding child support, asset division, and fees. The court affirmed both decrees, finding sufficient evidentiary support for the chancellor's findings and no abuse of discretion.
• Madison B. Wright v. Barrilleaux
  352 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1965-10-26
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the collision were not clearly erroneous, but that the dismissal of Lykes Bros.' cross-libel was erroneous.
• Augustina Seijo v. Hobbs
  271 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-15
  The district court had the power under local Admiralty Rule 104 to substitute a deceased respondent's executrix and amend the judgment, as the substantial merits had been determined prior to the respondent's death and the order did not prejudice the executrix's rights.
• Jacobus v. THE Scow Triboro NO. 22
  267 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1959-06-12
  The court held that the owner of Triboro No. 22 was not negligent for failing to have a captain aboard, and thus should receive full damages, not half. The court also affirmed the refusal to limit the liability of the South's owner due to their awareness of the scow's defective c
• LEA Towing Co., Inc. v. Standard Supply Corp.
  265 F.2d 883· 6th Cir.· 1959-04-30
  The court held that the interlocutory decree should be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of a newly discovered regulation.
• Avard Warren Ostrom v. Ostrom
  231 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1955-09-26
  A federal district court cannot enforce the terms of an interlocutory divorce decree from a state court, particularly those requiring specific acts or payments beyond a simple money judgment.
• J. S. Gissel & Co. & Shell Oil Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
  219 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1955-02-04
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of mutual fault, holding that the case presented a dispute of fact correctly resolved by the trial judge.
• Buell v. City OF Montague
  190 F.2d 1019· 9th Cir.· 1951-07-27
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a confirmed Chapter 9 composition plan, even if it involved a property omitted from the original schedule.
• Bekins v. Compton-Delevan Irr. Dist.
  168 F.2d 1016· 9th Cir.· 1948-07-21
  The court held that the appeal regarding the April 23, 1947 order was untimely, but the appeal regarding the July 16, 1947 order was timely and should be modified to include the full bond amount. The court further held that appellants' failure to surrender their bonds as required
• Mason v. Merced Irr. Dist.
  165 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1948-01-19
  The court held that the deadline for surrendering bonds for composition payment should run from the date the order becomes final, not from its entry date, and that the appellant's claims of error were not prejudicial.
• Woodnick v. Sam Johnson Co.
  94 Fla. 514· Fla.· 1927-08-01
  A property buyer sought return of $1,000 held in escrow by a third party when the sale deal fell through, but the seller claimed entitlement to the funds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to accept an interpleader action, requiring the parties to liti