Also known as: collateral-order doctrine · Cohen doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine permitting immediate appellate review of certain interlocutory orders that satisfy three conditions. The order must conclusively determine the disputed question. It must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action. It must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Helping Hands, a nonprofit, faced a discovery order requiring public filing of all major donor names and contribution amounts. The organization immediately appealed, arguing the order finally resolved its claim to associational privacy. The privacy interest stood apart from the underlying misuse allegations and would be destroyed once the information became public.
Police officers sued for excessive force moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion after finding material facts disputed and set the case for trial. The officers appealed at once, asserting the ruling conclusively rejected their claimed right to avoid standing trial.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Former presidential aides invoked absolute immunity in a civil rights suit. The district court rejected the defense and allowed the case to proceed. The aides filed an immediate appeal, contending the denial resolved an important immunity question separate from the underlying merits.
A hospital sought to stay a construction dispute pending state court proceedings. The district court denied the stay, leaving the federal action to continue. The hospital appealed immediately, claiming the ruling conclusively disposed of its asserted right to avoid parallel litigation.
A company received an order compelling production of documents it claimed were attorney-client privileged. The district court rejected the privilege assertion and directed immediate disclosure. The company appealed at once, arguing the order finally resolved a right that would be lost once the documents left its control.
The Vice President asserted executive privilege over documents sought in a civil suit. The district court ordered production after finding the privilege claim insufficient. The Vice President appealed immediately, maintaining the ruling conclusively rejected a right that could not be restored after disclosure.
The order must conclusively determine the disputed question. It must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action. It must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Supporting sources
A denial conclusively resolves whether the defendant must stand trial. The immunity question is separate from the underlying liability merits. The protection from suit itself would be lost if the defendant had to proceed through trial before review.
Supporting sources
No. Most discovery orders fail the third requirement because any error can be remedied after final judgment. An order qualifies only when it finally resolves an important right that would be irretrievably lost once complied with, such as compelled public disclosure of confidential donor information.
Supporting sources
The denial qualifies only if the bond right is separate from the merits and would be lost forever without immediate review. Routine cost-allocation orders that can be corrected through post-judgment cost shifting do not satisfy the unreviewability prong.
Supporting sources
…entitled to absolute immunity. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a-3a. Independently of former President Nixon, petitioners invoked the collateral order doctrine and appealed the denial of their immunity defense to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without opinion. Id. , at 11a-12a.…