Motion for Leave to Appeal – request an appellate court review a relevant interlocutory order that was found to be irrelevant & thus was not admitted within the previous court’s trial

Note: Motion for Leave to Appeal is slightly different than Application for Leave to Appeal.

Motion for Leave to Appeal:

(1874) A request that an appellate court review an interlocutory order (a judicial determination found within a case, but not a final judgment) that meets the standards of the collateral-order doctrine. – Abbr. MLA.

Collateral-Order Doctrine:

(1950) A doctrine allowing appeal from an interlocutory order that conclusively determines an issue wholly separate from the merits of the action & effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. – Also termed Cohen doctrine (fr. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221 (1949), See appealable decision under DECISION (1).” [1]

     Collateral order doctrine is an exception in federal courts to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable. In other words, collateral order doctrine permits appeal of certain non-final judgments under the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C.§ 1291.[2]

28 U.S. C. § 1291. Final decisions of district courts

     “The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.” [3]

§1292. Interlocutory decisions

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

(2) Interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property;

(3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.

(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

(c) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction-

(1) of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal under section 1295 of this title; and

(2) of an appeal from a judgment in a civil action for patent infringement which would otherwise be appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and is final except for an accounting.

(d)(1) When the chief judge of the Court of International Trade issues an order under the provisions of section256(b) of this title, or when any judge of the Court of International Trade, in issuing any other interlocutory order, includes in the order a statement that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to that Court within ten days after the entry of such order.

(2) When the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims issues an order under section 798(b) of this title, or when any judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in issuing an interlocutory order, includes in the order a statement that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to that Court within ten days after the entry of such order.

(3) Neither the application for nor the granting of an appeal under this subsection shall stay proceedings in the Court of International Trade or in the Court of Federal Claims, as the case may be, unless a stay is ordered by a judge of the Court of International Trade or of the Court of Federal Claims or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a judge of that court.

(4)(A) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, granting or denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 1631 of this title.

(B) When a motion to transfer an action to the Court of Federal Claims is filed in a district court, no further proceedings shall be taken in the district court until 60 days after the court has ruled upon the motion. If an appeal is taken from the district court’s grant or denial of the motion, proceedings shall be further stayed until the appeal has been decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The stay of proceedings in the district court shall not bar the granting of preliminary or injunctive relief, where appropriate and where expedition is reasonably necessary. However, during the period in which proceedings are stayed as provided in this subparagraph, no transfer to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the motion shall be carried out.

(e) The Supreme Court may prescribe rules, in accordance with section 2072 of this title, to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d).

Decision:

“n. (16c.) 1. A judicial or agency determination after consideration or the facts & the law; especially a ruling, order, or judgment pronounced by a court when considering or disposing of a case. Decisional, adj.”

Appealable Decision:

(1870) A decree or order that is sufficiently final to receive appellate review
(such as an order granting summary judgment), or an interlocutory decree or
order that is immediately appealable, usually by statute (such as an order
denying immunity to a police officer in a civil-rights suit). – also termed reviewable issue.”

References:

[1]:  Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6

[2]: Digital Equipment, 114 S.Ct. at 1995-96 (the ‘Cohen requirements’)

[3]: U.S. House of Representatives’ Office of Law Revision Counsel, “United States Code Title 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDUREPART IV-JURISDICTION AND VENUECHAPTER 83-COURTS OF APPEALS § 1291. Final decisions of district courts:  http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=28+U.S.C.+section+1291&f=treesort&fq=true&num=65&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title28-section1291

******************************************

Back to All Motions

All Writs

All Orders

Rules of Procedure

Intro to Law

Please Support Our Fundraiser

 

How the U.S. Judicial System is Designed to Enable The People to Fix the System when used as Designed