Also known as: interlocutory appeals · interlocutory review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An appeal taken from a nonfinal district court order. The collateral order doctrine permits immediate review when the order conclusively determines a disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
Maria Lopez sued the City of Redbrook and three officers for excessive force. The district court denied the officers' summary judgment motion on qualified immunity after finding all material facts undisputed and set the case for trial. The officers filed a notice of appeal. The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction because the order satisfied the three collateral order requirements.
A. Ernest Fitzgerald sued former President Richard Nixon for damages arising from his dismissal from federal employment. Nixon moved to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion. Nixon took an immediate appeal, which proceeded because the claimed immunity from suit met the collateral order criteria.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stewart Organization sued Ricoh Corporation in Alabama federal court despite a contractual clause designating New York as the forum. The district court refused to enforce the clause under state law and denied transfer. Ricoh sought immediate review. The court of appeals accepted the interlocutory appeal after the district court certified the controlling question.
A shareholder sued J. I. Case Company and its directors after a merger approved by allegedly misleading proxies. The district court dismissed part of the complaint and required a security bond under state law. The plaintiff appealed the bond order immediately. The court of appeals reviewed the ruling because it finally disposed of a claimed right collateral to the merits.
The Archbishop of San Antonio challenged a city zoning decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The district court held RFRA unconstitutional and certified the order for immediate appeal. The Fifth Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court later granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question.
Several plaintiffs joined claims against Exxon Mobil, some falling below the amount-in-controversy threshold. The district court dismissed the smaller claims for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought immediate review. The court of appeals accepted the appeal because the supplemental jurisdiction question satisfied the collateral order test.
The order must conclusively determine the disputed question. It must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits. It must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Supporting sources
The denial conclusively resolves whether the officers must stand trial. The immunity question is separate from the ultimate liability determination. The protection from suit would be lost if the officers had to endure trial before review.
Supporting sources
The order conclusively resolves the privacy claim. The associational privacy right is separate from the underlying misuse allegations. Once names are publicly disclosed the harm cannot be undone by later review.
Supporting sources
Most courts hold that it does not. The bond request concerns ordinary cost allocation rather than an immunity-like right. Any error remains reviewable after final judgment through adjustment of costs or damages.
Supporting sources
…Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court certified its order for interlocutory appeal and the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding RFRA to be constitutional. 73 F. 3d 1352 (1996). We granted certiorari, 519 U. S. 926 (1996), and now reverse. II Congress enacted RFRA in…