Also known as: collateral-order rule · collateral order doctrine · Cohen rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that permits immediate appellate review of certain nonfinal 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 a final judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Helping Hands received a discovery order requiring public disclosure of major donor names and contribution amounts. The nonprofit immediately appealed, claiming the order destroyed associational privacy rights that could never be restored after disclosure occurred. The appeal proceeded because the order finally resolved a right separate from the underlying misuse claims and would be lost once the information became public.
Carpenter sought production of internal investigation documents that Mohawk Industries claimed were privileged. The district court ordered disclosure and Mohawk appealed at once. The appeal was allowed because the privilege ruling conclusively decided a right whose value would vanish upon disclosure even if later reversed after judgment.
The district court ordered production of documents the Vice President claimed were protected by executive privilege. Cheney appealed the order before any final judgment. Immediate review was available because the privilege claim presented an important separation-of-powers issue that would be lost if the documents were disclosed and review waited until after trial.
Police officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity after a high-speed chase ended in a shooting. The district court denied the motion on undisputed facts and set the case for trial. Plumhoff appealed immediately because the immunity denial conclusively rejected a right not to stand trial that could not be restored after litigation proceeded.
Forsyth sued Attorney General Mitchell for warrantless wiretapping. The district court denied Mitchell's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Mitchell appealed at once because the denial resolved his claimed right to avoid trial on undisputed facts and that protection would be lost if the case went forward.
Disabled plaintiffs sued Tennessee alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in courthouse access. The state asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity and the district court denied the defense. Tennessee appealed immediately because the immunity ruling conclusively decided a right not to be sued that would be destroyed by forcing the state to litigate to 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
Most discovery orders fail the unreviewable prong because any harm can be remedied after final judgment through sanctions, exclusion of evidence, or a new trial. Only discovery orders that finally decide a right whose value would be permanently lost upon compliance qualify for immediate review.
…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.…
…appeal of that decision. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 506 U. S. 139 (1993) (collateral order doctrine
…506 U. S. 139 (1993), we held that "States and state entities that claim to be arms of the State' may take advantage of the collateral order doctrine
…to the denial of qualified immunity, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court's order was not appealable under the
Supporting sources
A denial is immediately appealable when the district court resolves the immunity question on undisputed facts. The ruling then conclusively rejects a claimed right not to stand trial that is separate from the merits and would be lost if the officers had to litigate through trial.
Supporting sources
Denial of a bond motion may qualify when the bond serves as an immunity-like protection from abusive litigation costs that would be lost if the defendant had to defend without security. Routine cost-allocation orders that can be remedied after judgment do not qualify.
Supporting sources
Such an order is immediately appealable when it conclusively decides an asserted right of access to the courts that is separate from the merits and would be lost if the party cannot post the bond and is barred from defending before final judgment.
Supporting sources