Also known as: Cohen's doctrine · collateral order doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial exception to the final judgment rule that permits immediate appeal of certain interlocutory orders. The exception applies when an order conclusively determines a disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
NovaLaunch moves for an order requiring shareholder Olivia to post a state-law security bond before proceeding with a derivative suit. The district court denies the motion outright. NovaLaunch files an immediate appeal, arguing the denial finally resolves its claimed statutory protection from unrecoverable defense costs.
PRASA asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. The district court rejects the claim. PRASA appeals immediately, contending that forcing it to litigate to final judgment would destroy the immunity from suit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Officer Lewis moves for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity in an excessive-force suit. The district court denies the motion because genuine issues of material fact remain. Lewis appeals at once, claiming the denial subjects him to trial burdens the immunity is meant to prevent.
A district court orders production of documents despite a claim of attorney-client privilege. The producing party appeals immediately, asserting that disclosure would cause irreparable loss of the privilege that cannot be restored after final judgment.
A former attorney general moves for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds in a damages action. The district court denies the motion. The official appeals at once, arguing the denial conclusively resolves a right not to stand trial that would be lost if review waited until after judgment.
A state defendant claims Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages suit. The district court rejects the defense. The state appeals immediately, maintaining that the immunity from suit would be destroyed by requiring litigation through final judgment.
The order must conclusively determine the disputed question. It must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits. It must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Supporting sources
The immunity protects against suit itself. Requiring litigation to final judgment would destroy that protection, rendering the denial effectively unreviewable later.
Supporting sources
No. Although the order may be conclusive and separate, a protective order typically prevents irreparable harm, so the issue remains reviewable after final judgment.
Supporting sources
The denial fails when it rests on unresolved factual disputes that are intertwined with the merits rather than presenting a purely legal question separate from those merits.
Supporting sources
…entitled to absolute immunity. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a-3a. Independently of former President Nixon, petitioners invoked the collateral order doctrine and appealed the denial of their immunity defense to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without opinion. Id. , at 11a-12a.…