Rules, Standards, and Experimentation in Appellate Jurisdiction

Bryan Lammon

University of Toledo - College of Law

August 6, 2012

Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 74, 2013
Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-08-04

The current system of interlocutory appeals in federal court has long been criticized for its complexity and unpredictability, and federal courts scholars have long debated how best to reform it. But much of this discussion occurs at an abstract level. Scholars debate the effects of potential reforms — such as whether a particular reform will increase the number of interlocutory appeals — and these arguments have a substantial empirical element. They are often based, however, on implicit theories of judicial and litigant behavior, not empirical evidence. All of these arguments contain plausible positions on the potential effects of particular reforms. And therein lies the problem; there is no way to evaluate such arguments other than to agree or disagree with the logic and normative commitments at their core. Some empirical evidence could go a long way toward breaking the current stalemate in interlocutory appeal reform.

This article offers a means of using experimentation, initiated and overseen by judges, to generate evidence about the consequences of different approaches to interlocutory appeals. Under this experimental approach, the Courts of Appeals would be permitted to take differing positions on the appealability of particular orders; repeated application of these different rules would then illustrate their effects. The courts could reassess these different rules in light of their observed consequences. Although such experimentation (sometimes called "percolation") is controversial, it could work in the interlocutory appeals context. As a specific means for facilitating such experimentation, this article looks to the choice between rules and standards and suggests the modest and feasible reform of making the current collateral order exception more standard-like. In so doing, this article shows how standards can facilitate rapid and fruitful experimentation in a hierarchical judiciary, something the literature on rules and standards has often overlooked.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: August 7, 2012 ; Last revised: June 12, 2013

Suggested Citation

Lammon, Bryan, Rules, Standards, and Experimentation in Appellate Jurisdiction (August 6, 2012). Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 74, 2013; Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-08-04. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2125542 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2125542

Contact Information

Bryan Lammon (Contact Author)
University of Toledo - College of Law ( email )
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 287
Downloads: 65
Download Rank: 197,053

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.969 seconds