Collateral Order Doctrine

• 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Case Summaries: May 4, 2012

Civil Procedure Collateral Order Doctrine

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• May 13, 2012

• Hudson v. Harger, (Ohio 2012)

order granting dismissal of criminal complaint without prejudice – collateral order doctrine – final, appealable order

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Maryland Court of Special Appeals Case Summaries: September 16, 2012

Civil ProcedureMotion to withdraw as counsel BOTTOM LINE: The circuit court's order rejecting an attorney's request to withdraw as counsel in a civil action is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• September 23, 2012

• Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Appeals: November 19, 2007

Civil Procedure Collateral order doctrine

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• November 22, 2007

• U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's First Opinion Rejects Attorney-Client Privilege Argument

The first full opinion handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court this term came from its newest jurist, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The unanimous ruling in Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter held that litigants have no immediate right to appeal orders to compel documents based on a claim of attorney-client privilege under the collateral order doctrine. In so ruling, Sotomayor stressed the importance of the attorney- client privilege to the judicial system, but said that importance was not outweighed by the interest of awaiting a final verdict before allowing appeals.

• Lawyers USA
• December 09, 2009

• 4th Circuit: United States V. Juvenile Male

Criminal Procedure Collateral order doctrine

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• February 09, 2009

• U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit Case Summaries: August 9, 2012

Appellate Practice Attorney's FeesInterlocutory AppealJurisdiction Where a district court awarded attorney's fees of $24,500 on a partial judgment against a county defendant in a sexual harassment case and the court certified its orders as final judgments to allow for interlocutory appeal, Rule 54(b) certification was in error because no authority supported the claim that delay in the payment of attorney's fees rises to the level of a hardship or injustice to be alleviated by interlocutory appeal, and the interests of judicial administration also weight against certification. Appeal dismissed.Williams v. County of Dakota (MLW No. 64006/Case No. 11-1089 - 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska. (Vincent Valentin...

... balancing-of-the-equities test into the doctrine of recoupment once the provider met the same-trans...

• Missouri Lawyers Media
• August 16, 2012

• Giraldo v. Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund, et al., (2nd Cir. 2007)

... an eleven-page Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 16, 2006, the district court denied.... II. The Collateral Order Doctrine In the alternativ...

• Federal Circuits

• Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. (2009)

...The court declined to certify its order for interlocutory appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit... qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Co... appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Pp. 4–13. (a) Courts of Appeals “have juri...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Law Digest

COURT OF APPEALS Civil Procedure, Collateral order doctrine: The collateral order doctrine did not allow immediate appeal from a district court's order allowing discovery in a breach of lease case; even if an immediate appeal were allowed, it is the Court of Appeals' "considered dicta" that discovery is not barred. Hudson v. HABC, No. 24, Sept. Term 2007. RecordFax No. 7-1107-21, 18 pages.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• November 22, 2007