Biard
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Van Cauwenberghe
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of the case Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019621.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal by Maxwell. The argument is based on the 'final judgment rule' (28 U.S.C. ยง 1291), asserting that the order being appealed is not a final decision and does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. The document notes that the Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on similar grounds on September 16, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00019351.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the narrow 'collateral order' exception that permits immediate appeals under specific, strict conditions. The text cites multiple Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' to avoid the damaging effects of piecemeal litigation on the administration of justice.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity