New Amicus Brief on Cumulative Finality
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the petitioner’s brief and the United States’s brief did an excellent job of arguing that (1) the general background rule of federal appellate practice is cumulative finality—i.e., giving effect to premature notices of appeal; and (2) nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) or Rule 4(a)(6) displaces this background rule. (The Court had to appoint an amicus to argue in defense of the judgment.)
I wrote to expand on the first point and provide further background on both the history of cumulative finality and how it continues to exist alongside its partial codification in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. I also suggested that the Supreme Court provide some guidance on cumulative finality, as the area is lousy with inter- and intra-circuit splits.
For anyone interested, the brief is available on the Supreme Court’s website. My thanks to Jennifer Franklin of the William & Mary Law School Appellate & Supreme Court Clinic, as well as to two 3Ls in the Clinic—Tom Naatz and Tyler Mayhew—for their help with the brief. The case is scheduled for argument on April 21, 2025.
Amicus Brief of Bryan Lammon, Parrish v. United States, No. 24-275 (Mar. 5, 2025), available at the Supreme Court
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 Donahue v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the First Circuit held that the subsequent dismissal of a remaining defendant did not save a premature notice of appeal. The plaintiff in Donahue filed her notice after the district court had dismissed her claims against one of two defendants. So the notice of appeal was premature and […]
Continue reading....
In Norton v. High, the Fourth Circuit dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s appeal from a sanction order. The plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal after the district court ordered him sanctioned but before the court determined the amount of sanctions. The notice was thus premature. And under the Fourth Circuit’s approach to cumulative finality […]
Continue reading....
Updated with thoughts on some comments I’ve received. In 2018, I published an article about cumulative finality. The cumulative-finality doctrine allows certain events to save certain premature notices of appeal. The rule can’t be stated much more specifically, however, because the law in this area is all over the map. My study of this area […]
Continue reading....
The cumulative-finality doctrine provides that certain subsequent events can save a premature notice of appeal filed after certain district court decisions. As I detailed in a 2018 article, the doctrine cannot be stated with any greater precision because the courts of appeals are all over the map on when exactly notices can be saved. Three […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....