Posts in category “Weekly Roundup”
Last week, the D.C. Circuit untangled several appellate issues—including the necessity of a cross-appeal to argue personal jurisdiction—in the course of hearing an appeal. The Seventh Circuit held that an attempted class-action objector lacked appellate standing when she did not seek to intervene. Plus another attempted appeal from a temporary restraining order, some improper qualified-immunity appeals, the timeliness of intervention appeals, appealing dismissals without prejudice, and appellate jurisdiction in cases of unserved defendants.
Last week, the Sixth Circuit addressed the appealability of a district court order delaying a decision on a motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit required meaningful district court participation in dismissals without prejudice for those dismissals to be appealable. Two courts of appeals addressed their jurisdiction to review temporary restraining orders in the context of COVID-19 related abortion restrictions. Two courts of appeals rejected improper qualified-immunity appeals. And the Federal Circuit addressed whether a stipulated dismissal was a “judgment” for purposes of seeking attorney’s fees.
Last week, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules met and considered (among other things) the proposed amendments to Rule 3(c) and cumulative finality. A split Second Circuit held that immigration’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions applied only when a petitioner was deemed removable due to a covered criminal offense. The Fifth Circuit addressed when reconsideration decisions can restart the clock for taking an arbitration appeal. Plus improper qualified-immunity appeals (including one on the preclusive effect of a state conviction), notices of appeal, and patent-claim-construction appeals.
Programming Note: Weekly roundups will probably be short, and new posts will probably be rare, for the next few weeks.
The Supreme Court addressed the scope of review in immigration appeals. The Sixth Circuit reversed course on the jurisdictional basis for sentencing appeals. The Ninth Circuit joined everyone else in holding that Rule 23(f) appeals are available for reconsideration orders only when the orders change the status quo. And the Ninth Circuit decided another case on undoing pre-Baker voluntary dismissals. Plus a few cases on administrative appeals, cumulative finality, dismissals without prejudice, and the Eleventh Circuit’s “anomalous rule” for intervention appeals.
Last week saw two decisions of note. The Seventh Circuit dismissed a bankruptcy appeal because the district court had remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for a determination of sanctions. And the Tenth Circuit dismissed a qualified-immunity appeal because the defendant refused to accept the facts that the district court took as true in denying immunity.
A brief roundup this week, as there is much else to be done. The Seventh Circuit clarified that decisions striking class allegations can be appealed via Rule 23(f). The Fifth Circuit issued a questionable cumulative-finality decision. And courts continue to reject defendants’ improper qualified-immunity appeals (though no one seems to get sanctioned for taking these appeals).
Last week saw several developments and decisions of note. The Supreme Court heard argument in Nasrallah v. Barr, which involves the scope of review in appeals from the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. In Baltimore’s climate-change litigation, the Fourth Circuit deepened the split on the scope of remand appeals. The Eleventh Circuit untangled some issues with notices of appeal and clarified its caselaw on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)’s order-designation requirement. Plus appeals involving agency decisions, qualified immunity, post-judgment proceedings, dismissals without prejudice, and much more.
Last week was eventful. The Supreme Court held that defendants who ask for a particular sentence do not need to object after sentencing to preserve sentence-length issues for appeal. The Court also denied cert in a case involving the scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. Speaking of qualified-immunity appeals, two courts rejected defendants’ improper attempts to challenge the facts the district court took as true for the purposes of denying qualified immunity. Another court remanded a qualified-immunity appeal for the district court to explain its denial of immunity. Plus administrative remands, arbitration, and declining to vacate interlocutory orders when a case becomes moot.
Last week saw a new decisions on finality in bankruptcy under Ritzen Group, the consequences of an interlocutory appeal becoming moot, the content and timing of notices of appeal, and cumulative finality. Plus a new report on discretionary appeals under § 1292(b) and a new cert petition on appealing non-party sovereign immunity.
Last week saw decisions on appealing bankruptcy remands and orders distributing receivership assets. The Federal Circuit used mandamus to address an unresolved and important venue issue in patent-infringement suits. And the Third Circuit dismissed an attorney’s appeal because the attorney was not named in the notice of appeal. Plus an appeal from an unexplained denial of qualified immunity and a new cert petition that suggests overruling Mitchell v. Forsyth.
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