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
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
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....