Blog

Decisions from last month raised some interesting questions about the role of the collateral-order doctrine, particularly when it comes to immunities and criminal appeals. In other developments, the Eleventh Circuit deemed an appeal untimely after concluding that—in hindsight—a post-judgment motion was not really a Rule 59 motion. The Ninth Circuit split on what it means to determine “rights and liabilities” for purposes of admiralty appeals.…

A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) normally resets the appeal deadline. But in SEC v. TCA Fund Management Group, the Eleventh Circuit held that a post-judgment motion was not really a Rule 59 motion. That means the motion did not reset the appeal deadline, and the notice of appeal was late.…

In Amisi v. Brooks, the Fourth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the refusal to dismiss a claim as barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The court thought that the Act provided an immunity from litigation. And that, apparently, was all that was necessary for an appeal via the collateral-order doctrine.…

The collateral-order doctrine is one of the most frequently invoked exceptions to the final-judgment rule. The doctrine deems final a district court order that (1) conclusively resolves an issue, (2) involves an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in an appeal after a final judgment.…

An especially busy January means I didn’t have a lot of time to post about decisions from last month. But there were still several worth talking about. Below is a brief roundup of what I found interesting.…

As I’ve said many times on this site and in my scholarship, the genuineness of any factual disputes is normally not within the scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. There are some widely recognized exceptions to this rule. Two Eleventh Circuit cases from last month—Nelson v. Tompkins and Dempsey v.…

Last October, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lowery v. Amguard Insurance Co. that litigants can create a final decision by abandoning unresolved claims. As I noted at the time, this holding stood in some tension with the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that litigants cannot voluntarily dismiss discrete claims. And although I liked the outcome, I did not see a meaningful difference difference between abandoning an unresolved claim and voluntarily dismissing it.…

The last month of 2023 produced several decisions of note. Two courts addressed whether a single filing could serve the dual functions of both a motion to reopen the appeal deadline and a notice of appeal. The courts of appeals have split on this issue, though both courts to address it last month held that a single notice of appeal could perform these multiple functions.…

In Winters v. Taskila, the Sixth Circuit held that a notice of appeal was effectively a motion to reopen the appeal window. The court went on to hold that once the district court reopened that window, this notice was also a notice of appeal. The courts of appeals have split on whether a notice of appeal can serve these dual functions.…

A ruling on liability is not final until the court specifies a remedy. But what if that remedy consists entirely of attorney fees? The Supreme Court has long held that a decision on the merits is final despite any unresolved issues regarding attorney fees. So is a ruling on liability final when the remedy is an unspecified award of attorney fees?…