About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

68 Emory L.J. Online 1001 (2018-2019)

handle is hein.journals/emyon68 and id is 1 raw text is: HALL V. HALL: A LOSE-LOSE CASE FOR APPELLATE JURISDICTION Bryan Lammon* INTRODUCTION As a general rule, federal litigants can appeal only at the end of district court proceedings, when all issues have been decided and all that remains is enforcing the judgment.' This general limit on appellate jurisdiction is commonly called the final-judgment rule, and it is a judicial gloss on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That statute gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over only final decisions of the district courts.2 And that statute-or more accurately, judicial interpretations of that statute that elaborate on what it means for a decision to be final-is the source for most of the rules of federal appellate jurisdiction.3 In 2018's Hall v. Hall, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of § 1291 in the context of actions consolidated under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 That Rule permits district courts to consolidate multiple actions into a single joint proceeding.5 In Hall, the Court held that the resolution of a single action consolidated with other actions is a final decision, regardless of whether the other actions remain pending.' Litigants in the resolved action can thus immediately appeal the resolution of that action.' The courts of appeals had split on this issue for decades, developing four different answers to the question of which decision in consolidated actions was a final one.8 Hall finally resolved this split. . Associate Professor, University of Toledo College of Law. Thanks to Ken Kilbert for helpful comments. And special thanks, as always, to Nicole Porter. ' See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012); Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902 (2015); Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (discussing § 128 of the Judicial Code, the predecessor to what is currently § 1291). 2 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. See Bryan Lammon, Finality, Appealability, and the Scope of Interlocutory Review, 93 WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2018) (manuscript at 4) (on file with author). 4 Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1122 (2018). 5 FED. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 6 Hall, 138 S. Ct. at 1131. 7 Id. Compare, e.g., In re Mass. Helicopter Airlines, Inc., 469 F.2d 439,441-42 (1st Cir. 1972), with Bergman v. City of Atlantic City, 860 F.2d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 1988), and Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1984).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most