DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
677 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
7
Events
6
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
677 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the very limited 'collateral order doctrine,' a narrow exception that permits immediate appeal of certain orders if they meet a strict three-part test. The text cites numerous Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' in criminal proceedings to avoid undue delay and piecemeal litigation.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Flanagan |
Party in a cited legal case, Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270 and Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265.
|
|
| Culbertson |
Party in a cited legal case, United States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010).
|
|
| Di Bella |
Party in a cited legal case, Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962).
|
|
| Livesay |
Party in a cited legal case, Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).
|
|
| Cohen |
Party in a cited legal case, Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
|
|
| Van Cauwenberghe |
Party in a cited legal case, Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988).
|
|
| Biard |
Party in a cited legal case, Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988).
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases: United States v. Culbertson, Di Bella v. United States, and Midland Asphalt Corp....
|
| Coopers & Lybrand | company |
Party in a cited legal case, Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).
|
| Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. | company |
Party in a cited legal case, Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having made clear that the collateral order exception should be interpreted strictly.
|
| Midland Asphalt Corp. | company |
Party in a cited legal case, Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989).
|
Timeline (7 events)
1949
Citation of the case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541.
1978
Citation of the case Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468.
1989
Citation of the case Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799.
2010
Citation of the case United States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir.).
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implicit location of the legal system and cases being discussed (e.g., U.S. Supreme Court).
|
Relationships (6)
Parties in the case United States v. Culbertson.
Parties in the case Di Bella v. United States.
Parties in the case Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay.
Parties in the case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
Parties in the case Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard.
Parties in the case Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States.
Key Quotes (5)
"overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases"Source
— Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270
(Noted as a policy against immediate appeals before a final judgment.)
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
Quote #1
"exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare"Source
— Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270
(Emphasizing the infrequency of exceptions to the final judgment rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
Quote #2
"ʻundue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice,’ the common consequences of piecemeal appellate review, are ‘particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases’"Source
— United States v. Culbertson (quoting Di Bella v. United States)
(Describing the negative effects of allowing too many appeals before a final judgment in criminal cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
Quote #3
"(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."Source
— Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
(Listing the three conditions an order must meet to be considered an immediately appealable collateral order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
Quote #4
"interpreted . . . with the utmost strictness in criminal cases."Source
— Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States (quoting Flanagan)
(Stating the Supreme Court's directive on how the collateral order exception should be applied in criminal law.)
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,600 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page8 of 23
458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982) (per curiam); see also Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270 (noting
“overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases” and that
“exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare”); United States v.
Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that “ʻundue litigiousness
and leaden-footed administration of justice,’ the common consequences of
piecemeal appellate review, are ‘particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal
cases’” (quoting Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962))).
11. There is a limited exception to this rule that permits immediate
appeal from certain collateral orders. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S.
463, 468 (1978) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541
(1949)). To fall within the “small class” of decisions that constitute immediately
appealable collateral orders, the decision must “(1) conclusively determine the
disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
12. The Supreme Court has made clear that the collateral order
exception should be “interpreted . . . with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.”
Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265); accord United
“overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases” and that
“exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare”); United States v.
Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that “ʻundue litigiousness
and leaden-footed administration of justice,’ the common consequences of
piecemeal appellate review, are ‘particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal
cases’” (quoting Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962))).
11. There is a limited exception to this rule that permits immediate
appeal from certain collateral orders. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S.
463, 468 (1978) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541
(1949)). To fall within the “small class” of decisions that constitute immediately
appealable collateral orders, the decision must “(1) conclusively determine the
disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
12. The Supreme Court has made clear that the collateral order
exception should be “interpreted . . . with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.”
Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265); accord United
8
DOJ-OGR-00019374
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document