| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | This doctrine has application only when: Digital Equipment, 114 S.Ct. at 1995-96 (the 'Cohen requirements'). | | 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> | + | :"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]]. | | 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]]. |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | More specifically, an appeal is allowed immediately from a denial of a defense in these situations: | | 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 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> | | * 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).</ref> | | * state [[sovereign immunity]] under the Eleventh Amendment<ref>''[[Puerto Rico Aquaduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf and Eddy]]'', 113 S.Ct. 684, 688 (1993).</ref> |