Also known as: rules of nonappealability · nonappealability rule · nonappealability doctrine · final judgment rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An appellate rule that bars immediate review of most district-court orders until a final judgment is entered. The rule rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) for remand orders and on the final-judgment requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 for other interlocutory rulings that fail the collateral-order test.
Ridgeway Partners removed a state-law class action to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The district court found the claims outside the Act's preclusion provision and remanded the case to state court. Ridgeway Partners filed a notice of appeal. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal because the remand order fell squarely within the rule of nonappealability and no exception permitted immediate review.
Roberto Reyes sued Coopers & Lybrand on behalf of a putative class of investors. The district court denied class certification on the ground that individual issues predominated. Reyes appealed immediately, arguing the denial effectively ended the litigation. The court of appeals held the order nonappealable because it did not satisfy the collateral order doctrine's requirement of effective unreviewability after final judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Renee Rogers sued Mohawk Industries and sought production of documents she claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege. The district court ordered disclosure. Mohawk appealed at once, asserting the order would cause irreparable harm. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that ordinary privilege rulings remain subject to the rule of nonappealability and can be reviewed adequately after final judgment.
The rule originates in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that an order remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable on appeal. Courts have applied the same principle to other interlocutory orders that do not meet the collateral order exception.
Yes. An order is immediately appealable only if it conclusively determines a disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. Orders that fail any of these three conditions remain subject to the rule of nonappealability.
No. A sanctions order against an attorney is not a final decision and is not effectively unreviewable after final judgment in the underlying action. Such orders therefore fall within the rule of nonappealability.
No. The Supreme Court has held that the Act does not create an exception to the general rule of nonappealability for remand orders under § 1447(d). The court of appeals therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the remand.
…fining attorneys for discovery violations would result in “the very sorts of piecemeal appeals and concomitant delays that the final judgment rule was designed to prevent”). Attempting to downplay such concerns, Mohawk asserts that the three Circuits in which the collateral order doctrine currently applies to adverse privilege rulings…