|
An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal), in the law of civil procedure, is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that 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."〔Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 2:3-2〕 Interlocutory appeals may be brought, however, if waiting to bring an appeal would be particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. For example, if a party is asserting some form of immunity from suit, or is claiming that the court completely lacks personal jurisdiction over them, then it is recognized that being forced to wait for the conclusion of the trial would violate their right not to be subjected to a trial at all. Alternatively, the trial judge can "certify" one of his orders for immediate interlocutory appeal. Say, 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 cases that is 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'', 490 U.S. 495 (1989), holding that under the relevant statute () such an appeal would be permitted only if: #the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue; #the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and #the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed. The Supreme Court created the test in the case ''Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.'', 337 U.S. 541 (1949), 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. 337 U.S. at 546-47. The doctrine was restricted in (''Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc.'', 511 U.S. 863 (1994) ), 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". 511 U.S. at 879. Several U.S. statutes directly confer the right to interlocutory appeals, including appeals from orders denying arbitration, , and some judicial actions against the debtor upon filing bankruptcy proceedings, (a). 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. Compare ''Bradford-Scott Data Corp., Inc. v. Physician Computer Network'', 128 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1997), and ''Britton v. Co-op Banking Group'', 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990). 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 (Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388, F.3d 39, 53-4 (2d Cir. 2004; Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) ). The Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuit courts conversely hold that a non-frivolous appeal warrants a stay of proceedings. See, Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d, 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997); Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1251-2 (11th Cir. 2004); McCauley et al. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 161 Fed. Appx. 760 (10th Cir. 2005). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Interlocutory appeal」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|