Posts in category “Scholarship”

Civil-rights plaintiffs sometimes sue both the government officials who injured them and the municipal entity (city, school, county, etc.) that employed the officials. (The claims against the municipalities are often called “Monell claims,” after the Supreme Court decision that governs them.) While individual government officials can invoke the qualified immunity defense, municipalities cannot.…

With rare exceptions, defendants appealing from the denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment cannot challenge the factual basis for the immunity denial. Yet defendants regularly flout this limit on the scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. They appeal from the denial of immunity to argue that the district court erred in determining what a reasonable jury could find.…

Standards of review are a key part of appellate litigation—you cannot know whether the district court erred without knowing how the court of appeals will look at the district court’s decision. And a variety of standards of review exist, from de novo review for legal issues to clear-error review for factual issues to abuse-of-discretion review for a variety of district court decisions.…

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.…

Richard L. Heppner Jr.’s article Conceptualizing Appealability: Resisting The Supreme Court’s Categorical Imperative is now available. Heppner shows that appellate-jurisdiction rules have two components: the category of orders to which the rule applies, and the conditions under which orders in that category can be appealed. Using cognitive psychology, he explores how courts create and apply different kinds of categories.…

Kylie G. Calabrese has published a note in the Baylor Law Review titled Mandamus Madness in the Fifth Circuit: The Aftermath of In re JP Morgan. Calabrese chronicles—and criticizes—last year’s Fifth Circuit decision in In re JP Morgan Chase & Co., in which the panel denied mandamus yet purported to issue a binding holding on the underlying legal issues.…

I’ve been studying interlocutory class-certification appeals for a while now, and my draft article on the topic—Interlocutory Class-Certification Appeals Under Rule 23(f)—is now up on SSRN. I created a dataset of petitions to appeal class-certification decisions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) filed from 2013 through 2017. The draft presents my findings, such as the number of petitions filed, the rate at which they’re granted (nationally and by circuit), and—when courts grant petitions to appeal—decisions on the merits of class certification.…

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.…

Updated July 2021: The article has been published in the Georgia Law Review (55 Ga. L. Rev. 959 (2021)), and the final version is available on SSRN.

Last year year I wrote that Scott v. Harris’s blatant-contradiction rule for qualified-immunity appeals is an unpragmatic and unnecessary rule that should be rejected.…

I’ve talked several times on this site about the recently denied cert petition in Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp. The case involved a maddening back-and-forth between the Federal and Fifth Circuits, with each court saying that the other had appellate jurisdiction to review a Walker Process claim. More specifically, the two circuits disagreed about whether Walker Process claims arose under the patent law.…