New Article on Final Decisions & Final Judgments
I have a new article on the distinct roles that final decisions and final judgments play in the law of federal appellate jurisdiction.
Final decisions and final judgments lie at the core of modern federal appellate jurisdiction. But far too often, courts and litigants conflate the two. This lack of precision can create unnecessary procedural detours and needlessly cumbersome rules of appellate jurisdiction. It can even lead to the inadvertent loss of the right to appeal. Some clarity is needed.
Using the circuit split over appeals after dismissals with leave to reinstate, I use this article to explain the separate and important roles that final decisions and final judgments play in federal appellate jurisdiction. In short, the existence of a final decision determines when appellate jurisdiction exists and thus when litigants can appeal. And the entry of a final judgment starts the appeal clock, determining the point by which litigants must appeal. These two events often coincide. But not always. Going forward, courts should be precise when discussing these two key aspects of federal appellate jurisdiction. Doing so could bring some much-needed clarity to this area of the law.
The article is titled Final Decisions & Final Judgments, and it’s forthcoming in the Journal of Appellate Practice & Process. A draft is available on SSRN.
Final Decisions & Final Judgments, 24 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process (forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN.
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 Ueckert v. Guerra, the Fifth Circuit held that an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity was untimely, as it came 412 days after the district court’s bench ruling. In the course of doing so, the court explained that the defendant had 180 days to appeal this denial. That’s because the district court never […]
Continue reading....
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “judgment” as any decree or order from which an appeal lies. But just because a district court calls something a “judgment” does not mean that the court has entered a final, appealable decision. (And the rule that anything appealable is a “judgment” is not really followed.) The […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
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....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
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....