Federal Judicial Center Report on § 1292(b) Appeals
The Federal Judicial Center released a new report on petitions to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The report—Emery G. Lee III, Jason A. Cantone & Kristin A. Garri, Permissive Interlocutory Appeals, 2013–2019—presents data on the incidence and resolution of § 1292(b) petitions terminated between October 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019. Parties filed 636 petitions to appeal in that period, and the courts of appeals granted or denied 535 (the rest were terminated procedurally). Of those 535, the courts of appeals granted 280 (52%). And when courts granted a § 1292(b) petition to appeal, the petitioning party obtained some relief (reversal in whole or in part or a vacatur) about half of the time.
The report’s executive summary is below. Thanks to Michael Solimine for sending this my way.
This brief report summarizes the findings of Federal Judicial Center (FJC) researchers regarding the incidence and resolution of permissive interlocutory appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) terminated in the U.S. courts of appeals from October 1, 2013, through June 30, 2019. Key findings include:
- 636 § 1292(b) applications to appeal were terminated in the courts of appeals during the study period.
- Of those decided by the courts of appeals, 52% of applications were granted.
- For granted applications, the median time from the filing of the application to appeal to the appellate mandate on the merits appeal was 542 days (17.8 months).
- A preliminary analysis found that the party initiating the appeal obtained some relief from the court of appeals about half of the time that the court of appeals reached the merits of the appeal.
- Interlocutory appeals resulting in some form of relief for the initiating party did not take any longer than interlocutory appeals resulting in no relief for the initiating party.
Emery G. Lee III, Jason A. Cantone, & Kristin A. Garri, Permissive Interlocutory Appeals, 2013–2019 (2020), available at the Federal Judicial Center.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....
In In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a preemption issue as part of a certified appeal that concerned the right to a jury trial. The district court had thought that only the jury-trial issue warranted an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). But the Seventh Circuit concluded that the […]
Continue reading....
In Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the D.C. Circuit held that district courts cannot “recertify” an order and thereby restart the ten-day window for seeking permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court in Strange had rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai via Twitter. […]
Continue reading....
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....
The following guest post is by Alan B. Morrison. Mr. Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law at George Washington University Law School, where he teaches civil procedure. He is also the co-author, with Howard Eisenberg, of an article dealing with similar appeal issues: Discretionary Appellate Review of Non-Final […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....