DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing arguing that an appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It cites the 'Collateral Order Doctrine' and legal precedent, such as the final judgment rule from Title 28, Section 1291 of the U.S. Code, to support the argument that appellate review is generally not permitted until a final judgment is rendered. The context is a motion filed by Maxwell on September 10, 2020, to consolidate appeals, one of which relates to the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as the filer of a motion to consolidate appeals and as a party in the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
|
| Giuffre |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
|
| Flanagan |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'Flanagan v. United States'.
|
|
| Aliotta |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Aliotta'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
Stated as not being a party to the appeal in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Courts of Appeals | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of their jurisdiction being limited by Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited for its long-held position on the policy against piecemeal appellate review.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as embodying a policy against piecemeal appellate review in statute.
|
| Hollywood Motor Car Co. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in legal citations such as 'United States Code', 'U.S.C.', 'U.S.', and case names like 'Flanagan v. United...
|
Key Quotes (3)
"final decisions of the district courts."Source
— Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291
(Quoted to define the jurisdictional limits of the Courts of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
Quote #1
"This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits. In a criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence."Source
— Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984)
(Quoted to explain the final judgment rule and its application in criminal cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
Quote #2
"long held,” the “policy of Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and . . . this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law."Source
— Supreme Court (via United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.)
(Quoted to describe the Supreme Court's stance on appellate review.)
DOJ-OGR-00019373.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,464 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page7 of 23
the Order. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 55). On September 10, 2020, Maxwell filed the
instant motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal currently pending in
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. The Government is not a party to the appeal in
Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing
materials that were previously filed under seal.
instant motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal currently pending in
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. The Government is not a party to the appeal in
Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing
materials that were previously filed under seal.
ARGUMENT
I. THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
A. Applicable Law
1. The Collateral Order Doctrine
10. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the
jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to “final decisions of the district courts.” 28
U.S.C. § 1291. “This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise
all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits. In a
criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition
of sentence.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d
78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has “long held,” the “policy of
Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial
court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and . . . this policy is at its
strongest in the field of criminal law.” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.,
jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to “final decisions of the district courts.” 28
U.S.C. § 1291. “This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise
all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits. In a
criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition
of sentence.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d
78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has “long held,” the “policy of
Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial
court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and . . . this policy is at its
strongest in the field of criminal law.” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.,
7
DOJ-OGR-00019373
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document