Also known as:unreviewable · unreviewability · nonreviewability doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A condition in the collateral order doctrine under which an interlocutory order qualifies for immediate appeal because the right asserted would be irretrievably lost if review were deferred until final judgment.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Qualified Immunity Denial Appeal
Umar Underwood sued Officer Ulric Unger and the City of Clarksville under section 1983 for excessive force during an arrest. The district court denied the officer's summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity because factual disputes remained about whether the officer struck Underwood after he was handcuffed. The officer filed an immediate appeal claiming the denial satisfied the unreviewability prong because the protection from trial burdens would be lost once litigation proceeded.
Trade Secret Disclosure Order
Umbra Technologies moved to compel Unison Media to produce proprietary source code in a patent infringement suit. The district court granted the motion under a protective order limiting use to the litigation. Unison Media appealed immediately asserting that any disclosure would cause permanent competitive harm that could not be undone after final judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Security Bond Denial in Malpractice Suit
Uriel Urban filed a class action against Ulysses Maritime alleging medical malpractice from a surgical device. The district court denied the company's motion to require the class to post a security bond under state law. Ulysses Maritime appealed at once claiming the denial eliminated its statutory protection against unrecoverable expert costs that could never be restored after trial.
Line Item Veto Challenge
Union Steel challenged a presidential cancellation of a tax benefit under the Line Item Veto Act. The district court rejected the challenge and the company sought immediate review asserting that the right to the benefit would be lost forever if review waited until final judgment on related claims.
Deportation Order Review
Ugo Ucelli faced deportation after an immigration judge's order. The district court denied his motion to stay removal pending constitutional review. Ucelli sought immediate appeal asserting that the right to remain in the United States would be irretrievably lost once deportation occurred.
Prison Discipline Claim
Unity Underhill sued prison officials under section 1983 alleging denial of due process in disciplinary proceedings. The district court dismissed some claims and the officials appealed asserting that the right to avoid trial on those claims would be lost if review were postponed until final judgment.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What makes an order effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment?+
An order meets this standard when the right asserted would be irretrievably lost once the case proceeds to trial or final judgment. The protection from litigation burdens or permanent harm cannot be restored by later appellate review.
Supporting sources
Does the collateral order doctrine require all three conditions to be satisfied?+
Yes. The order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. Failure on any prong defeats immediate appealability.
Supporting sources
Are routine discovery orders typically unreviewable under the collateral order doctrine?+
No. Discovery orders are usually reviewable after final judgment through sanctions or retrial if misuse occurs. They fail the unreviewability prong unless the harm is truly permanent and cannot be remedied later.
Supporting sources
487 U.S. 654 (1988)Constitutional Law
…Attorney General's decision not to seek appointment of an independent counsel with respect to Schmults and Dinkins was final and unreviewable under § 592(b)(1), and that therefore the court had no authority to make the requested referral. In re Olson , 260 U. S. App. D. C. 168, 818 F. 2d 34. The court ruled, however, that its…