green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
30.9 score
“because we have jurisdiction to review the effective denial of appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction, we also have jurisdiction over the trial court's decision to stay this case pending ... proceedings before the pto.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Murata MacHinery USA, Inc. v. Daifuku Co., Ltd.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
because we have jurisdiction to review the effective denial of appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction, we also have jurisdiction over the trial court's decision to stay this case pending ... proceedings before the pto.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Orenshteyn v. Citrix Systems, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the circuits have uniformly focused on the policy of judicial economy in deciding whether to review pendent orders and issues.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
When this court reviews a properly appealable interlocutory order, “other interlocutory orders, which ordinarily would be nonap-pealable standing alone, may be reviewed.” Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
(2×)
For example, in Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 131 (Fed.Cir.1986), where suit was ongoing in state court for royalties under a license agreement, the court held that a federal declaratory judgment action challenging validity was properly stayed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medimmune v. Centocor
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 1985), and Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 133 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Bard, Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 780 F.2d 991 (Fed.Cir.1985), and Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 133 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medimmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Bard, Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 780 F.2d 991 (Fed.Cir.1985), and Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 133 (Fed.Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Prince Sports Group, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., and Jack L. Frolow, Counterclaimant-Appellant.
Intermedics Infusaid v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,913 Asset Allocation and Management Company v. Western Employers Insurance Company
(2×)
Parks v. Pavkovic, supra, 753 F.2d at 1402 ; Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries, 728 F.2d 820, 826-27 (7th Cir.1984); Maybelline Co. v. Noxell Corp., 813 F.2d 901 , 903 n. 1 (8th Cir.1987); Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America, Cross-Appellant in No. 87-1777 v. Marcus Spears and Doris E. Spears. Appeal of Doris Spears, in No. 87-1735
(4×)
See also Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 571 (2d Cir.1986); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of America, 683 F.2d 827, 831 (4th Cir.1982); Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn Ip LLC
(2×)
See Procter & Gamble, 549 F.3d at 846 (citing Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc.
See Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129 , 134 (Fed.Cir.1986); see also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No.2008-1105, 549 F.3d 842, 849 , slip. op. at 6, 2008 WL 5101824 (Fed.Cir.
cited
Cited "see"
Entegris (Formerly Known as Mykrolis Corporation) v. Pall Corporation
See Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 (Fed.Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.
See Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoechst Celanese Corporation and Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. Bp Chemicals Limited
See Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 , 231 USPQ 653, 657 (Fed.Cir.1986) ("[T]he major factor in determining whether to exercise [pendant appellate] jurisdiction is the extent that review of the appealable order will involve consideration of factors relevant to the otherwise nonappealable order.").
discussed
Cited "see"
L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant/appellee v. Edward F. Allina and Meter Treater, Inc., Defendants/counterplaintiffs-Appellants
(2×)
Hill v. Victoria County Drainage Dist., 441 F.2d 416, 417 (5th Cir.1971) (court dismissed without prejudice rather than staying case because “to prematurely resolve the alleged federal constitutional problems might well be a waste of time”) 2 ; see Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129 , 132 n. 5, 231 USPQ 653 , 655 n. 5 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.
Commission v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241 , 73 S.Ct. 236, 239 , 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952); see Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 135 , 231 USPQ 653, 658 (Fed.Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Micro Motion, Incorporated v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., Cross/appellant
See Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 , 231 USPQ 653, 657 (Fed.Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Polaroid Graphics Imaging, Inc.
See Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129, 134 , 231 USPQ 653, 657 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barhold v. Rodriguez
See Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129 , 134 & n. 8 (Fed.Cir.1986); Placid Oil Co. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 792 F.2d 1127, 1133-34 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1986); New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 550 F.2d 745, 759-61 (2d Cir.1977); see, e.g., Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 , 1135 (2d Cir.1988) (reviewing district court's grant and denial of summary judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barhold v. Rodriguez
See Intermedies Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129 , 134 & n. 8 (Fed.Cir.1986); Placid Oil Co. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 792 F.2d 1127, 1133-34 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App. 1986); New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 550 F.2d 745, 759-61 (2d Cir.1977); see, e.g., Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134 , 1135 (2d Cir.1988) (reviewing district court’s grant and denial of summary judgment).
Jack R. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck, Defendants-Appellees
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Robert Steinlauf and Richard Ten Eyck, Defendants-Appellees
85-5724.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 13, 1986.
Russell L. Forkey, Pamela M. Burdick, Cara L. Eisenberg, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Edward J. Marko, Marko & Stephany, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Fay, Henderson, Nichols, Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2)
This securities fraud action alleges violations of both state and federal law including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and S.E.C. Rule 10(b)(5). The primary issue on appeal involves the order of the trial court compelling arbitration of those claims brought under the 1934 Act.
This issue is controlled by this court’s recent en banc opinion in Wolfe v. E.F. Hutton, 800 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir.1986). The order of the trial court dealing with arbitration of these claims is reversed.
Appellant also raises issues concerning the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. The record is simply not clear as to how or when these matters were presented to the trial court nor how they were disposed of in the orders entered. Since arbitration was stayed, it may be that they were merely postponed. In any event we suggest the issues of adhesion, unconscionability, waiver of judicial remedies without notice, and the lack of mutuality of obligation can be visited upon remand. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); Miller v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 791 F.2d 850 (11th Cir.1986).
REVERSED and REMANDED.