Federal Judicial Center Report on § 1292(b) Appeals
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. Parties filed 636 petitions to appeal in that period, and the courts of appeals granted or denied 535 (the rest were terminated procedurally). Of those 535, the courts of appeals granted 280 (52%). And when courts granted a § 1292(b) petition to appeal, the petitioning party obtained some relief (reversal in whole or in part or a vacatur) about half of the time.
The report’s executive summary is below. Thanks to Michael Solimine for sending this my way.
This brief report summarizes the findings of Federal Judicial Center (FJC) researchers regarding the incidence and resolution of permissive interlocutory appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) terminated in the U.S. courts of appeals from October 1, 2013, through June 30, 2019. Key findings include:
- 636 § 1292(b) applications to appeal were terminated in the courts of appeals during the study period.
- Of those decided by the courts of appeals, 52% of applications were granted.
- For granted applications, the median time from the filing of the application to appeal to the appellate mandate on the merits appeal was 542 days (17.8 months).
- A preliminary analysis found that the party initiating the appeal obtained some relief from the court of appeals about half of the time that the court of appeals reached the merits of the appeal.
- Interlocutory appeals resulting in some form of relief for the initiating party did not take any longer than interlocutory appeals resulting in no relief for the initiating party.
Emery G. Lee III, Jason A. Cantone, & Kristin A. Garri, Permissive Interlocutory Appeals, 2013–2019 (2020), available at the Federal Judicial Center.
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 ContactRelated Posts
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....
In In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a preemption issue as part of a certified appeal that concerned the right to a jury trial. The district court had thought that only the jury-trial issue warranted an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). But the Seventh Circuit concluded that the […]
Continue reading....
In Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the D.C. Circuit held that district courts cannot “recertify” an order and thereby restart the ten-day window for seeking permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court in Strange had rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai via Twitter. […]
Continue reading....
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. But […]
Continue reading....
The following guest post is by Alan B. Morrison. Mr. Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law at George Washington University Law School, where he teaches civil procedure. He is also the co-author, with Howard Eisenberg, of an article dealing with similar appeal issues: Discretionary Appellate Review of Non-Final […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....
Sometimes a district court doesn’t resolve all the claims in an action. The district court might overlook one of a plaintiff’s many claims. Or the district court might forget about counterclaims or crossclaims. Regardless of what happened, the district court has explicitly resolved only part of an action. If the district court thereafter enters judgment […]
Continue reading....
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....