Finality, Appealability, and the Scope of Interlocutory Review

44 Pages Posted: 16 Mar 2018 Last revised: 23 May 2019

See all articles by Bryan Lammon

Bryan Lammon

University of Toledo - College of Law

Date Written: March 13, 2018

Abstract

Most of the law of federal appellate jurisdiction comes from judicial interpretations of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That statute gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over only “final decisions” of the district courts. The federal courts have used this grant of jurisdiction to create most of the rules governing appellate jurisdiction. But those efforts have required giving many different meanings to the term “final decision.” And those many different meanings are to blame for much of the confusion, complexity, unpredictability, and inflexibility that plague this area of law. The literature has accordingly advocated reform that would base most of the law on something other than case-by-case interpretations of what it means for a decision to be “final.” Before any reform, however, it is crucial to understand the ways in which the federal courts have interpreted the term “final decision.”

This article unearths the three contexts in which courts have interpreted § 1291 to create three different kinds of rules: (1) rules about when district court proceedings have ended and parties can take the classic, end-of-proceedings appeal on the merits; (2) rules about when litigants can appeal before the end of those proceedings; and (3) rules limiting or expanding the scope of review in those before-the-end-of-proceedings appeals. Though related, these contexts are distinct, involve unique interests, and raise unique issues. Successful reform must fill all of the roles that interpretations of the term “final decision” have played. In the meantime, federal courts could bring some much-needed candor and transparency to this area of law by acknowledging the three different ways in which they have used this term.

Suggested Citation

Lammon, Bryan, Finality, Appealability, and the Scope of Interlocutory Review (March 13, 2018). 93 Washington Law Review 1809 (2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3139926

Bryan Lammon (Contact Author)

University of Toledo - College of Law ( email )

2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
69
Abstract Views
470
rank
334,783
PlumX Metrics