New Article on Final Decisions & Final Judgments
I have a new article on the distinct roles that final decisions and final judgments play in the law of federal appellate jurisdiction.
Final decisions and final judgments lie at the core of modern federal appellate jurisdiction. But far too often, courts and litigants conflate the two. This lack of precision can create unnecessary procedural detours and needlessly cumbersome rules of appellate jurisdiction. It can even lead to the inadvertent loss of the right to appeal. Some clarity is needed.
Using the circuit split over appeals after dismissals with leave to reinstate, I use this article to explain the separate and important roles that final decisions and final judgments play in federal appellate jurisdiction. In short, the existence of a final decision determines when appellate jurisdiction exists and thus when litigants can appeal. And the entry of a final judgment starts the appeal clock, determining the point by which litigants must appeal. These two events often coincide. But not always. Going forward, courts should be precise when discussing these two key aspects of federal appellate jurisdiction. Doing so could bring some much-needed clarity to this area of the law.
The article is titled Final Decisions & Final Judgments, and it’s forthcoming in the Journal of Appellate Practice & Process. A draft is available on SSRN.
Final Decisions & Final Judgments, 24 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process (forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN.
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 Ueckert v. Guerra, the Fifth Circuit held that an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity was untimely, as it came 412 days after the district court’s bench ruling. In the course of doing so, the court explained that the defendant had 180 days to appeal this denial. That’s because the district court never […]
Continue reading....
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “judgment” as any decree or order from which an appeal lies. But just because a district court calls something a “judgment” does not mean that the court has entered a final, appealable decision. (And the rule that anything appealable is a “judgment” is not really followed.) The […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....