Also known as: collateral order appeal · collateral-order appeal · collateral-order appeals · collateral order doctrine · interlocutory appeals
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An exception to the final judgment rule permitting immediate appeal of certain interlocutory orders. The order must conclusively determine a disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.
Cade Carpenter sued Cypress Technologies alleging misleading statements by executives. Cypress moved for a statutory bond to cover defense costs. The district court denied the motion. Cypress appealed immediately, asserting the denial finally rejected its claimed protection and could not be remedied after trial.
Christine Castro sued Compass Logistics for breach of contract containing an arbitration clause. The district court denied a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Compass appealed at once, claiming the denial conclusively resolved its right to avoid litigation and would be lost if review waited until final judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Claire Campbell sought discovery from Central Dynamics concerning internal White House communications. The district court rejected the company's assertion of executive privilege. Central Dynamics appealed immediately, arguing the order resolved an important separation-of-powers issue separate from the merits and could not be effectively reviewed later.
Charlotte Chung moved to compel production of documents from Citadel Security. The district court ordered disclosure despite a claim of attorney-client privilege. Citadel appealed at once, contending the order finally determined a right whose loss through disclosure could not be undone after final judgment.
Carmen Choi sued Colin Chambers under section 1983 alleging excessive force. The district court denied Chambers's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Chambers appealed immediately, asserting the denial conclusively resolved his claimed right not to stand trial and was effectively unreviewable later.
Cypress Technologies faced criminal charges after an earlier acquittal on related counts. The district court denied a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. Cypress appealed at once, claiming the order finally rejected its asserted right not to be tried again and would be lost if review awaited 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.
Yes. The denial conclusively resolves the defendant's claimed right to security. The right is important and separate from the merits of liability. It would be lost if the defendant had to litigate without the bond until final judgment.
Denial permits immediate appeal when the order conclusively resolves the official's claimed right not to stand trial. The right is important and separate from the merits. It would be lost once the burdens of litigation begin.
Usually not. Although the order may be conclusive, the issue is often intertwined with the merits and any harm is not effectively unreviewable after final judgment when a protective order is in place.
Broad application would undermine the final judgment rule by encouraging piecemeal appeals. The doctrine is reserved for rights whose loss cannot be remedied after final judgment, such as immunities from suit.
…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.…