Posts in category “Weekly Roundup”

Last week saw several appellate-jurisdiction decisions of note. Defendants in two civil rights suits took wholly improper appeals, which have become a staple of qualified immunity. Two circuits addressed the scope of their jurisdiction to review sentencing appeals. The Ninth Circuit avoided wading into questions about the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.…

Last week saw a few interesting appellate-jurisdiction decisions, all of which involved some uncertainty about when the time to appeal started running. The D.C. Circuit avoided deciding that issue by invoking the doctrine of “companion” jurisdiction. A concurring Ninth Circuit judge pointed out that no one seems to know when the time for appealing begins to run when two immigration cases are consolidated and only one of the cases is decided.…

Last week was mostly about appeals and dismissals without prejudice. There were also a handful of cases limiting the scope of review due to the contents of a notice of appeal. Plus an appeal from a not-yet-determined attorneys’ fees award and a cert denial on the scope of qualified-immunity appeals.…

Last week produced a handful of interesting appellate-jurisdiction decisions. The Supreme Court held that denials of relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay are immediately appealable. A split Ninth Circuit used mandamus to reverse a discovery order that would have have helped class-action counsel find a lead plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief to plaintiffs who had voluntarily dismissed their claims to secure an appeal.…

Last week was a busy one. Several opinions (including one from the en banc Fifth Circuit) addressed appealability under the collateral-order doctrine. The Federal Circuit held that a premature notice of appeal was saved by a party abandoning all outstanding claims at oral argument. The Eleventh Circuit correctly addressed pendent appellate jurisdiction in qualified-immunity appeals.…

Back from winter break with two holiday weeks of interesting appellate-jurisdiction opinions. Judge Fletcher offered an interesting take on Johnson v. Jones. Two circuits dealt with the blatant-contradiction exception to the normal jurisdictional limits on qualified-immunity appeals. Another opinion questioned the jurisdictional nature of immigration exhaustion. Plus two decisions on the content requirements for notices of appeal, the administrative-remand rule, and several cert-stage filings in cases I’ve been following.…

This is the last weekly roundup of 2019; they’ll return after the holidays. And we’re ending with an eventful week of several interesting—though often technical—appellate-jurisdiction decisions. The Second Circuit held that immigration’s appeal deadline is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling. The D.C. Circuit determined that an order requiring disclosure of executive-department emails sufficiently modified an earlier injunction and was thus appealable.…

Last week was quite eventful. The Supreme Court heard argument in three cases that raise interesting appellate issues. The Fourth Circuit sat en banc to consider the use of mandamus to direct a § 1292(b) certification. Two Sixth Circuit judges wrote concurrences calling for that court to re-examine some of its appellate-jurisdiction rules (one on immigration exhaustion, another on arbitration remands).…

The post-holiday week saw only a handful of appellate-jurisdiction decisions. The Eighth Circuit addressed a local bankruptcy rule that required separate notices of appeal to appeal separate orders. The Eleventh Circuit rejected a fact-based qualified-immunity appeal. The Sixth Circuit extended pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in another qualified-immunity appeal.…

The short holiday week still had a few decisions of note. The Fourth Circuit weighed in on the split over the finality of orders remanding immigration proceedings for background checks. The Seventh Circuit joined the Third Circuit (but disagreed with the Sixth) in holding that failure to object to an untimely motion to reconsider did not make that motion timely for purposes of tolling appellate deadlines.…