Also known as: interlocutory matter · interlocutory order · interlocutory appeal
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial ruling issued before final judgment that resolves a discrete issue without terminating the action. Such rulings become immediately appealable only when they satisfy the collateral order doctrine by conclusively determining a disputed question separate from the merits that would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
Isabelle Inman sued police officers after an arrest, claiming excessive force. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds after finding all material facts undisputed. The officers filed an immediate notice of appeal. The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction because the order conclusively resolved their claimed right not to stand trial on an issue separate from ultimate liability.
Ike Ingram fled officers in a high-speed chase. Deputy Isaiah Ishikawa applied a push bumper that caused Ingram's car to crash, leaving him quadriplegic. Ingram sued under section 1983. The district court denied Ishikawa's qualified immunity motion. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial on interlocutory appeal and assessed whether the force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ingrid Innes was charged with bank robbery. She moved to suppress her confession, arguing it violated Miranda. The district court denied the motion. Innes sought immediate review. The court of appeals considered whether the ruling qualified for interlocutory appeal before trial proceeded on the merits.
Imani Idowu faced federal charges and refused antipsychotic medication. The district court ordered involuntary treatment to restore competency. Idowu appealed before trial. The court examined whether the order resolved an important collateral issue that could not await final judgment.
Isaiah Ishikawa, a detainee at Guantanamo, faced charges before a military commission. He petitioned for habeas relief, contesting the commission's authority. The district court ruled on preliminary jurisdictional questions. The Supreme Court addressed whether those rulings permitted immediate review before any final conviction.
Isla Ireland and other Nigerian plaintiffs sued a foreign corporation for alleged abuses abroad. The district court dismissed the claims on extraterritoriality grounds. Plaintiffs appealed before any trial. The Supreme Court considered whether the dismissal order resolved a threshold issue suitable for immediate appellate review.
The doctrine applies when an order conclusively determines a disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment. A denial of qualified immunity on undisputed facts meets these criteria because the immunity protects against the burdens of trial itself.
Supporting sources
Most discovery orders do not. The order must still satisfy the three collateral order elements, including that any harm would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment. A protective order limiting use and requiring return of materials typically prevents the kind of permanent loss that would justify immediate review.
Supporting sources
No. When genuine issues of material fact exist that are intertwined with the merits of the underlying claim, the order does not conclusively resolve a purely legal question separate from the merits. Immediate appeal is therefore unavailable under the collateral order doctrine.
Supporting sources
…States , 1986 I. C. J. 14, ¶218, 25 I. L. M. 1023)); Prosecutor v. Tadić , Case No. IT–94–1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, ¶102 (ICTY App. Chamber, Oct. 2, 1995) (stating that “the character of the conflict is irrelevant” in deciding whether Common Article 3 applies). [^maj-64]: The…