Interlocutory appeal

Last updated

An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal) occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. The rules governing how and when interlocutory appeals may be taken vary by jurisdiction.

Contents

United States

An appeal is described as interlocutory when it is made before all claims are resolved as to all parties. For instance, if a lawsuit contains claims for breach of contract, fraud and interference with contractual advantage, and if there are three defendants in this lawsuit, then until all three claims are resolved as to all three defendants, any appeal by any party will be considered interlocutory. The American courts disfavor such appeals, requiring parties to wait until all the claims as to all parties are resolved before any appeal can be brought to challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during the life of the case. "Although the general rule requires finality in order for a matter to be appealable, there are exceptions arising principally from court rules that permit appeal of interlocutory matters under specific circumstances." [1] The procedural posture of interlocutory appeals have previously been for allowing courts to grant "'hasty decision[s]'” on the basis of “'rudimentary hearings.'": 902 

Interlocutory appeals may be brought, however, if waiting to bring an appeal would be particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. The trial judge can "certify" one of his orders for immediate interlocutory appeal. Suppose all the claims and issues have been resolved as to one of the defendants, but the rest of the parties will be fighting out the case for another year or ten. The trial judge could "certify" (i.e. signal his agreement) to allow the part of the case that has been concluded at trial level to be appealed.

Federal courts

The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser , [2] holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C.   § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

  1. the matter appealed was conclusive on the issue presented;
  2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
  3. the matter appealed would be effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed.

The Supreme Court created the test in the case Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., [3] where it was applied to a requirement of bond to be posted in certain stockholders derivative actions by plaintiffs, in anticipation of being liable for defendant's attorney's fees. Since the substantial deterrent effect of the statute would be meaningless if not enforceable at the outset of litigation, but did not touch on the merits of plaintiff's claim, the Court allowed interlocutory appeal from the trial court's decision. [4] The doctrine was restricted in Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc., [5] which added an explicit importance criterion to the test for interlocutory appeals, holding that relief on a claim of immunity from suit because of a previous settlement agreement could not come through interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the only matters of sufficient importance to merit a collateral appeal were "those originating in the Constitution or statutes". [6]

Several U.S. statutes directly confer the right to interlocutory appeals, including appeals from orders denying arbitration, [7] and some judicial actions against the debtor upon filing bankruptcy proceedings. [8] There is a major split in the United States courts of appeals as to whether a stay of proceedings should issue in the district court while interlocutory appeals on the arbitrability of disputes are decided. [9] An interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine usually merits a stay of proceedings while the appeal is being decided. Currently, the Second and Ninth Circuits have refused to stay proceedings in the district court while an arbitration issue is pending. [10] The Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuit courts conversely hold that a non-frivolous appeal warrants a stay of proceedings. [11]

State courts

In California, interlocutory appeals are usually sought by filing a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal. If granted, the writ directs the appropriate superior court to vacate a particular order. Writs of mandate are a discretionary remedy; over 90% of such petitions are denied due to the state's public policy of encouraging efficient litigation of civil actions on the merits in the superior courts. [12]

In New Jersey, "[t]he discretionary jurisdiction of the Appellate Division over appeals taken from interlocutory decisions of lower courts and of state administrative officers and agencies exists as a result of the combination of constitutional provisions and court rules." [13] "The standard set out in the Rules of Court for determining whether to grant leave to appeal an interlocutory decision is, simply, that 'the Appellate Division may grant leave to appeal, in the interest of justice.'" [14]

In New York, various interlocutory appeals can be found under the Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5701. This section, along with a writ of mandamus are the only exceptions to filing an appeal only after the final judgment has been given.[ citation needed ]

In North Carolina, the trial court judge may certify an interlocutory order for an appeal. Notably, such certification is not binding on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, meaning that the North Carolina Court of appeals is free to refuse to review an interlocutory appeal even though the trial court had certified it. On the other hand, even when the trial court does not certify on order for immediate appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals may grant a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory appeal on the basis of the so-called "substantial right."[ citation needed ] Whether the North Carolina Court of Appeals concludes that a substantial right is affected and decides to grant of a writ is not always easily predictable. The North Carolina has adopted a two-part test for the appropriateness of an appeal of an interlocutory order: Whether a substantial right is affected by the challenged order and whether this substantial right might be lost, prejudiced, or inadequately preserved in the absence of an immediate appeal. As the North Carolina Court of Appeals itself said on many occasions, "the substantial right test is more easily stated than applied." Some rights that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently found to be substantial are: the right to conduct business and get paid.[ citation needed ] A notable exception to the rule that all orders are interlocutory until the final issue is resolved is the issue of unresolved attorney's fees. In 2013, the Supreme Court of North Carolina clarified that all appeals can and must be taken from the trial courts' orders even if the attorney's fees were still unresolved.[ citation needed ] In 2013 the North Carolina lawmaking body substantially liberalized the appeals from the decisions of North Carolina family law courts (i.e., the divorce courts, applying N.C. Gen. Stat. §50). Until 2013, the litigants had to wait until the trial court resolved all divorce related issues until they could appeal any of the trial court's orders. For instance, an order resolving alimony could not be appealed until the court also resolved child support, division of property, and child custody. [15] The new law N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-19.1 allows divorcing spouses to appeal each of these unrelated orders as soon as they are entered.

In Louisiana, parties to both civil and criminal cases may apply for supervisory writs in one of the state's five geographic Circuit Courts of Appeal, seeking to review a ruling or order of the district court.[ citation needed ] As the name implies, the Court of Appeal's power to consider a writ application stems from its supervisory jurisdiction over the district courts.[ citation needed ] Such jurisdiction is discretionary, and thus the appellate court may issue an action granting or denying the writ, or may decline to consider the merits of an application altogether.[ citation needed ] In practice, taking writs is far more common in criminal matters and most often involves objections to a district court's pre-trial rulings on defense motions to suppress evidence, statements, or identifications.[ citation needed ] An application for supervisory writs is also the mechanism for seeking review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a petition for post-conviction relief. A party aggrieved by the Court of Appeal's ruling on a supervisory writ may then apply for supervisory writs in the Louisiana Supreme Court.[ citation needed ]

Canada

In Canada, there is no right of interlocutory appeal in criminal matters. Rulings made in the course of a criminal trial can only be challenged on appeal after the case is finally decided. However, when a trial is held in provincial court, rulings during the trial may be challenged for jurisdictional error (when the court is alleged not just to have made a wrong decision, but to have made a decision it had no authority to make), or in a few other rare circumstances, by way of certiorari . [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia, established January 1, 1985, is an intermediate appellate court of 17 judges that hears appeals from decisions of Virginia's circuit courts and the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. The Court sits in panels of at least three judges, and sometimes hears cases en banc. Appeals from the Court of Appeals go to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989), is the touchstone case in which the United States Supreme Court laid out the law of interlocutory appeals for United States federal courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that disclosure orders adverse to attorney–client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.

<i>SEC v. Rajaratnam</i> American legal case

SEC v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which defendants Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi appealed a discovery order issued by a district court during a civil trial against them for insider trading filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The district court compelled the defendants to disclose to the SEC the contents of thousands of wiretapped conversations that were originally obtained by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) and were turned over to the defendants during a separate criminal trial.

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an interlocutory order of a district court, sitting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case, is in turn reviewable by the court of appeals when authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Although the Justices were unanimous in deciding the specific statutory interpretation issue concerning bankruptcy appeals that the case presented, they disagreed on the extent to which it was appropriate to refer to the legislative history of the statute in resolving the case.

Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964), was a Supreme Court case that held that pre-trial appeals may be made on non-final issues if the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies a question of controlling law to the appellate court and the appellate court allows the appeal.

<i>Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America</i>

Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America, 495 F.3d 1062 (2007), is a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case that examines whether a service provider may change the terms of its service contract by merely posting a revised contract on its website, without informing the other party of the changes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writ of mandate (California)</span> Type of extraordinary writ in California

The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

References

  1. ↑ Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 2:3–2.
  2. ↑ Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser , 490 U.S. 495 (1989).
  3. ↑ Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
  4. ↑ 337 U.S. at 546–47.
  5. ↑ Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994).
  6. ↑ 511 U.S. at 879.
  7. ↑ 9 U.S.C.   § 16.
  8. ↑ 11 U.S.C.   § 362(a) .
  9. ↑ Compare Bradford–Scott Data Corp., Inc. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1997), and Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916F.2d1405 (9th Cir.1990).
  10. ↑ See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 53–54 (2d Cir. 2004); Britton, 916 F.2d at 1412.
  11. ↑ See Bradford–Scott Data Corp., 128 F.3d at 506; Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2004); McCauley v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 161Fed. Appx.760 (10th Cir.2005).
  12. ↑ Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (Greinke), 209Cal. App. 3d1266 , 1271(1989)("Approximately 90 percent of petitions seeking extraordinary relief are denied.").
  13. ↑ Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 10:1–1.
  14. ↑ Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 10:2–1.
  15. ↑ "New Law Allows Each Claim in Divorce to be Appealed Separately". Family Law Appeals in North Carolina Blog.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  16. ↑ "Case in Brief: R. v. Awashish". Supreme Court of Canada. 26 October 2018. Retrieved 5 May 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.