green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 15×
43.7 score
G Cite
cited 9× by 3 distinct cases, 2002–2014 ·
…e approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
✓
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2018 · 2 courts ·
…unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals.
at p. 24
✓
cited 4× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2003 ·
…he denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. it is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thingthat the case should go to trial.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
June Medical Svcs v. Phillips
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
June Medical Svcs v. Phillips
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Steele Street Limited II
e approach somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fox Salerno v. Jerry Dunn
he denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of 3 16-17336 unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. it is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing- that the case should go to trial
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
T. v. District of Columbia
unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Vencent Scales
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mamma Mia's Trattoria, Inc. v. The Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co. Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
e approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shea v. Clinton
(2×)
he denial of a motion for summary judgment because unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. it is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing - that the ease should go to trial.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Enrietto v. Rogers Townsend & Thomas PC
orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1). we see no other way to protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(3×)
orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1)
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Alabama, State of Florida, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Robert B. Keyser, Colonel, in His Capacity as District Engineer, Mobile District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Randall R. Castro, Major General, in His Capacity as Division Engineer, South Atlantic Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Robert B. Flowers, Lt. General, in His Capacity as the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, State of Georgia, in Its Individual Capacity as Trustee of Its Natural Resources and in Its Representative Capacity as Parens Patriae for the Citizens of the State of Georgia, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant, Gwinnett County, Intervenor-Appellant, Atlanta Regional Commission, Intervenor-Defendant-Intervenor. Alabama, State Of, Florida, State Of, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Peter F. Taylor, Colonel, in His Capacity as District Engineer, Mobile District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Michael J. Walsh, Brigadier General, in His Capacity as Division Engineer, South Atlantic Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Carl A. Strock, Lt. General, in His Capacity as the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Georgia, State Of, in Its Individual Capacity as Trustee of Its Natural Resources and in Its Representative Capacity as Parens Patriae for the Citizens of the State of Georgia, Atlanta Regional Commission, Water Supply Intervenor, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant, Lake Lanier Association, Intervenor-Defendant
(3×)
orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1)
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
LeVanger v. HIGHLAND ESTATES PROPERTIES OWNERS ASSOCIATION
(6×)
he denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. it is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing - that the case should go to trial.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass'n 117 v. Jefferson County
(3×)
e approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Birmingham Fire Fighters Association 117 v. Jefferson County
(3×)
e approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sea Lane Bahamas Limited v. Europa Cruises Corporation, Europa Cruise Line, Ltd.
(2×)
unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals ... ence we approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC v. CenterPoint Properties Trust
(4×)
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966) (finding an order denying a motion for summary judg- ment not appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1292 (a)(1) because it was an order that “in no way touch[ed] on the merits” and “only relate[d] to pretrial procedures”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC v. CenterPoint Properties Trust
(4×)
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966) (finding an order denying a motion for summary judg- ment not appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1292 (a)(1) because it was an order that “in no way touch[ed] on the merits” and “only relate[d] to pretrial procedures”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Artisan and Truckers Casualty Co. v. Throgmorton
Cheese Assoc. v. Horne’s Market, 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Willie Rogers v. Nicholas Byroad
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966)) (additional citations omit- ted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kurt Beathard v. Larry Lyons
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966)) (additional citations omit- ted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maura O'Neill v. NYU Langone Medical Center
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24-25 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Meeks
Switzerland Cheese Assoc. v. Horne's Market, 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zenith Insurance Company v. Martin Newell, Jr.
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966); see also Zurn, 2023 WL 4835137 , at *3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Richard York v. United States
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cunningham v. Blackwell
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Toyo Tire Corporation v. Atturo Tire Corporation
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barr v. Stripes
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 , 87 S. Ct. 193, 195 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc.
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 , USCA11 Case: 21-10247 Date Filed: 03/16/2022 Page: 9 of 11 21-10247 Opinion of the Court 9 87 S. Ct. 193, 195 (1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lord v. Senex Law, P.C.
Furthermore, the court is heedful that it must “protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.” Switzerland Cheese Ass’n v. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simpson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
The court is further mindful that it is bound to “‘protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.’” Id. (quoting Switzerland Cheese Ass’n v. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crystal Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common
Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schafer v. CenterPoint Energy Oklahoma
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966). 2 This limitation applies here: The district court denied the landowner’s request for a permanent injunction because the landowner had not proven actual success on the merits.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966); Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1322 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D.
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966) (holding that orders “that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures” cannot be appealed on an interlocutory basis). 7 In sum, the district court’s order was neither styled as, nor had the characteristics of, an injunction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Oracle Corporation
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966); Function CLICK-TO-CALL TECHS., LP v. ORACLE CORP. 9 Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1322 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Prospect 34, LLC v. Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners
Horne’s Mkt., Inc. , 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Security Abstract & Title Co. v. Smith Livestock, Inc.
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 , 87 S. Ct. 193, 195 (1966). ¶15 Contrary to the dissent’s statement at ¶ 32, the issue whether the Agreement contained a condition precedent that VX Ranch obtain third party financing, was an integral part of the trial.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert, Cynthia v. Trans Union Corp
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brown
Horne’s Market, Inc., 87 S.Ct. 193, 195 (1966) (“Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view <interlocutory’ within the meaning of [§] 1292(a)(1).”); Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Birenbaum, 860 F.2d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1988); Shanks v. City of Dallas, 752 F.2d 1092, 1095 (5th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Asbestos Workers Medical Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate[ ] to pretrial procedures are not [appealable].” Chronicle Publishing Co., 902 F.2d at 1030 (quoting Switzerland Cheese, 385 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 193 ) (internal quotations marks omitted); see, e.g., id. (order preventing law firm from transferring work product to plaintiffs substitute counsel directed to counsel rather than a party was not ap-pealable under section 1292(a)(1)); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2nd Cir.1994) (protective order that did not grant or deny any of the ultimate relief sought in complaint was n…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Citizens Concerned v. School Board
Admittedly, whether the request is for preliminary or permanent relief is not necessarily dispositive, see Switzerland Cheese Ass’n, Inc. v. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 , 87 S. Ct. 193, 195 (1966), but a failure to seek immediate relief militates against a conclusion that delaying appeal to final judgment inflicts irreparable harm.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lermer Germany Gmbh and Lermer Usa, Inc. v. Lermer Corporation, Willi Lermer and Rolf Schwyn, and Rolf Gardey
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24-25, 87 S.Ct. 193, 194-95 , 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966); see Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc., 818 F.2d 841, 846-47 , 2 USPQ2d 1649, 1653-54 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
International Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Jeremy Guy Nelson (93-3653), Lexington Insurance Company (93-3654)
Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966). 6 It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss is granted.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hershey Foods Corporation v. Hershey Creamery Company, Hershey Creamery Company, Counter-Claimant v. Hershey Foods Corporation, Counter-Defendant
Nor does it satisfy the test set out in Switzerland Cheese, 385 U.S. at 25 , 87 S.Ct. at 195 (“Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view ‘interlocutory [injunctions]’ within the meaning of § 1292(a)(1).”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinnacle Nursing Home v. Axelrod
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
N.A.A.C.P. Cleveland Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Parma, Ohio
Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966). 4 Nor does the district court's order meet the criteria for the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule as set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheldon Abish v. Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wis.
Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In the exercise of our discretion, however, we are also bound "to protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals." Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Paula G. Wallen William H. Wallen
Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SWITZERLAND CHEESE ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al.
v.
E. HORNE’S MARKET, INC.
v.
E. HORNE’S MARKET, INC.
42.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 7, 1966.
David Toren argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were John J. McGlew and Aljred E. Page., Harold E. Cole argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Douglas, Harlan, Chappell, Inc, Frankel, Stewart.
Cited by 354 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners brought this suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the trademark laws. 60 Stat. 427, 15 U. S. C. 1051 et seq. They sought a preliminary injunction during the pendency of the action, a permanent injunction, and damages. After issue was joined, petitioners moved for a summary judgment granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages against respondent. The District Court could not say that there was “no genuine issue as to any material fact”[*24] within the meaning of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which governs summary judgments and accordingly denied the motion. Petitioners appealed, claiming that order to be an “interlocutory” one “refusing” an injunction within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a)(1). [1]
The Court of Appeals held that the order denying the motion for a summary judgment was not an “interlocutory” one within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 351 F. 2d 552. We granted certiorari because of a conflict between that decision and those from the Second Circuit. See, e. g., Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 217 F. 2d 936. [2]
Unlike some state procedures, federal law expresses the policy against piecemeal appeals. See Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176. Hence we approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened that brings into the exception many pretrial orders. It is earnestly argued, however, that, although this order denied a permanent injunction, it was nonetheless “interlocutory” within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1) because the motion for summary judgment did service for a motion for a preliminary injunction (see Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, supra, at 938) and that therefore “interlocutory” must also include a denial of a permanent injunction.
[*25] We take the other view not because “interlocutory” or preliminary may not at times embrace denials of permanent injunctions, but for the reason that the denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. It is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing — that the case should go to trial. Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not in our view “interlocutory” within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1). We see no other way to protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals. [3]
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below on the basis of the reasoning set forth in Judge Waterman’s opinion for the Second Circuit in Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197. Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the result.
1
That section provides:
“(a) The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
“(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
2
Subsequent to the grant of certiorari in this case, the Second Circuit, en banc, reversed its position and held that such an order is not appealable. Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197.
3
As Judge Charles E. Clark said, in dissent, in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corp., 280 F. 2d 800, at 805-806:
“A district judge’s orders advancing a case to trial ought not to be critically examined and re-examined by the cumbersome method of appeal before he has approached the stage of adjudication. . . . I believe this an intolerable burden for us, an improper and uncertain interference with trial court discretion, and a confusing invitation to indiscriminate appeals in the future — all contrary to settled federal law against piecemeal appeals.”