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
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....