2,848 bytes added
, 17:54, January 13, 2008
'''Collateral order doctrine''' is an exception in [[federal court]]s 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. section 1291.
This doctrine has application only when: Digital Equipment, 114 S.Ct. at 1995-96 (the 'Cohen requirements').
:"those district court decisions [1] that are conclusive, [2] that resolve important questions completely separate from the merits, and [3] that would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment in the underlying action."<ref>Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1992, 1995-96 (1994).</ref> This known as the "Cohen requirements," named after the decision that set the precedent.<ref>''[[Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp.]]'', 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949).</ref>
In cases concerning defenses of immunity, immediate appeals are allowed from orders denying the immunity defense on the grounds of [[absolute immunity]], [[qualified immunity]], [[presidential immunity]] and [[double jeopardy]].
More specifically, an appeal is allowed immediately from a denial of a defense in these situations:
* a defense of [[double jeopardy]]<ref>Abney v. U.S., 431 U.S. 651 (1977).</ref>
* a governmental official's qualified immunity<ref>''Mitchell v. Forsyth'', 472 U.S. 511 (1985).</ref>
* state [[sovereign immunity]] under the Eleventh Amendment<ref>''[[Puerto Rico Aquaduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf and Eddy]]'', 113 S.Ct. 684, 688 (1993)
* presidential absolute immunity<ref>''Nixon v. Fitzgerald'', 457 U.S. 731 (1982).</ref>
* intra-military immunity under the doctrine of ''Feres v. U.S.'', 340 U.S. 135 (1950)<ref>''Lutz v. Secretary of the Air Force'', 944 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir.'91).</ref>
* foreign [[sovereign immunity]] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. sections 1602-1611<ref>''Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. v. United States Dist. Ct.'', 859 F.2d 1354, 356 (9th Cir. 1988).</ref>
* [[Guam]]'s [[sovereign immunity]]<ref>''Marx v. Guam'', 866 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1989).</ref>
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has rejected any attempt to generalize from the above cases to a rule permitting immediate appeal whenever the district court denied an asserted right to avoid the burdens of trial. Instead, the Court has emphasized that "it is not mere avoidance of a trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil a substantial public interest, that counts when asking whether an order is 'effectively' unreviewable" after trial.<ref>''Will v. Hallock'', 126 S. Ct. 952, 959 (2006).</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
== Sources ==
* http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c178.htm
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:procedure]]
[[category:immunity]]