The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Review of Non-Final Order Decisions

Arceneaux v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Banks v. California

No details yet.

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.

No details yet.

Carson v. American Brands, Inc.

No details yet.

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, Trustee For The Estate Of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

No details yet.

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay

No details yet.

Cunningham v. Hamilton County OH

Is an order imposing sanctions on an attorney, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), a final decision and, thus, immediately appealable?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that an order imposing sanctions on an attorney pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4) is not a "final decision," even where the attorney no longer represents a party in the case. "To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process," Justice Thomas wrote for the Court. The Court concluded that piecemeal appeals and concomitant delays would preclude final judgement if such immediate appeals were possible. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc.

Is the denial of a "right not to sue" established by a settlement agreement immediately appealable under the Supreme Court's decision in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463?

No. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of immunity - while cause for concern - does not automatically create a right to immediate appeal. It is important to have final judgments before appeals are made, Justice David H. Souter wrote for the Court, and exceptions should only be made in particularly important cases. A "right not to go to trial," while significant, is rarely the key factor in a settlement agreement, and cannot compare in importance to the right to be free from "double jeopardy" in criminal court or the encroachment on public duties caused by a denial of immunity to public officials.

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord

No details yet.

Firstier Mtge. Co. v. Investors Mtge. Ins. Co.

No details yet.

Flanagan v. United States

No details yet.

Florida v. Thomas

Is New York v. Belton's bright-line rule limited to situations where the officer initiates contact with a vehicle's occupant while that person remains in the vehicle?

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari for want of jurisdiction. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Florida Supreme Court's decision did not fit any of the categories where the Court "treated state-court judgments as final for jurisdictional purposes although there were further proceedings to take place in the state court." Thus, the Court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was not final.

Forney v. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Can a Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal of an agency decision denying benefits appeal a district court order remanding the case to the agency for further proceeding?

Yes. In a unanimous decision announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that a person seeking Social Security disability benefits may appeal to a federal Court of Appeals when a District Court remands the case to the agency for further proceedings.

Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.

No details yet.

Gillette Co. v. Miner

No details yet.

Goldstein v. Cox

No details yet.

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.

No details yet.

Jefferson, Individually And As Administrator Of The Estate Of Jefferson, Deceased v. City Of Tarrant, Alabama

Are federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 governed by the Alabama Wrongful Death Act?

Unanswered. In an 8-1 decision the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction. The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the Court could not rule until the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings were completed and a final decision handed down. The case was dismissed.

Johnson v. California

In order to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), must the objector show that it is more likely than not that the other party's peremptory challenges were based on impermissible group bias?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

Johnson v. Jones

Is a Federal District Court's determination, in denying a summary judgment motion of police officers entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, that the record raised a factual issue an appealable final decision?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that a defendant, who is entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a District Court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. The Court reasoned, in part, that the competing considerations underlying questions of finality, including the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review, the danger of denying justice by delay, the comparative expertise of trial and appellate courts, and the wise use of appellate resources, argue against allowing immediate appeals of orders of the kind in question and in favor of limiting interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity matters to cases presenting more abstract issues of law.

Kimberlin v. Quinlan 515 U.S. 321

No details yet.

Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser

No details yet.

Melkonyan v. Sullivan

No details yet.

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Donovan

No details yet.

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

No details yet.

Parr v. United States

No details yet.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

No details yet.

Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller

No details yet.

Shenandoah Broadcasting v. Ascap.

No details yet.

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Finkelstein

No details yet.

Switzerland Assn. v. Horne's Market

No details yet.

United States v. Jose

Is a Federal District Court's order, which enforced IRS summonses but required the IRS to give notice prior to any internal transfer of summoned documents, appealable as final decision?

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the District Court issued a final, appealable order. The Court reasoned that the District Court's final order was indeed final because it was a decision dispositively granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested by the IRS. The Court also noted that finality, not ripeness, is the doctrine governing appeals from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. To appeal the District Court's decision, the IRS was neither obligated to defy the order nor required to provide notice of its intention to transfer documents internally, concluded the Court.

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

No details yet.

Will v. Hallock

1) If a claim under the FTCA is dismissed on the grounds that it is covered by one of the Act's exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity, is the dismissal a final judgment that bars a subsequent suit against the individual federal employees who were involved? 2) Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear an appeal of the District Court's order?

Unanswered, and no. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Writing for the Court, Justice David Souter stressed the narrow scope of the doctrine. The Court reiterated that only orders that cannot be "effectively" reviewed after a final judgment can be appealed before the close of the trial. Essential to this determination is the importance of the interest at stake. In this case, the Court ruled that the agents' interest in appealing the District Court's order had no "greater importance than the typical defense of claim preclusion" and it therefore warranted "no immediate appeal of right as a collateral order."