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
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 […]
Continue reading....
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....