Blog


There is lots to talk about from last week, including decisions involving three circuit splits. A divided Second Circuit created a split over the appealability of fugitive-disentitlement orders. The Eighth Circuit held that bankruptcy’s appeal deadline is non-jurisdictional, joining the Sixth Circuit in the split on that issue. And the Fifth Circuit noted that it now stands alone as the only court to allow appeals from denials of antitrust’s state-action defense.…

Continue reading....

Sometimes a fugitive defendant’s lawyer will appear in court to challenge the charges against the defendant. The defendant—who has failed to appear, evaded capture, or fled the jurisdiction—is absent. Yet the defendant hopes that the district court will dismiss some or all of the charges before the defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction.…

Continue reading....

Last week, the Fourth Circuit held that it could review hardship determinations in immigration appeals. In doing so, the court added to one side of the circuit split on this issue.

In other decisions, the Eleventh Circuit heard an appeal from the denial of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a criminal case.…

Continue reading....

All of the appellate-jurisdiction action last week was in the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits.

The en banc Eleventh Circuit unanimously overruled its caselaw that allowed defendants to immediately appeal the denial of antitrust’s state-action defense, which is often called “Parker immunity.” The court explained that the defense is not an immunity from suit.…

Continue reading....

The Bivens question asks whether a damages action exists for a federal official’s unconstitutional conduct. In Wilkie v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals can address the Bivens question as part of an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. But the Bivens question standing alone has not been deemed immediately appealable.…

Continue reading....

The past several years have seen the courts of appeals struggling with their jurisdiction when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss some of their claims without prejudice. Concerned that these plaintiffs are trying to manufacture an interlocutory appeal, the courts have developed a variety of rules on appealability. The Fifth Circuit, for example, requires that the would-be appellant obtain a partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).…

Continue reading....

Last summer, the Eleventh Circuit heard an immediate appeal from a district court’s denial of what’s often called “Parker immunity.” This so-called immunity provides that the Sherman Act generally does not cover a state’s anticompetitive conduct. The case—SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle—produced three separate opinions on appealability. The majority and dissent argued over the application of the the rule allowing these appeals via the collateral-order doctrine.…

Continue reading....

In a case from a few weeks ago that I just saw, the Fifth Circuit weighed in on the split over reviewing hardship determinations in immigration appeals. The court sided with the Sixth and Eleventh in treating hardship determinations as mixed questions of law and fact that the court had jurisdiction to review.…

Continue reading....

Last week saw a possible variation on the Fifth Circuit’s finality trap: the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed some of its claims before the district court dismissed the remainder. Thankfully the Fifth Circuit saw no effort to manufacture an appeal and concluded that the district court’s dismissal was appealable.

In other decisions, the Eighth Circuit reviewed a remand under CAFA’s local-controversy exception.…

Continue reading....

Last week saw several decisions tackling difficult appellate-jurisdiction issues. Primary among them was the Seventh Circuit’s decision recognizing the messiness in its decisions reviewing extensions of the appeal deadline for excusable neglect. That court treats the excusable-neglect requirement as jurisdictional, but it reviews these excusable-neglect determinations only for an abuse of discretion.…

Continue reading....

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 Contact