Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Alfred Copeland v. Charles Ryan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 28, 2017No. 16-15849Published

1Concurrence

BERZON,

Circuit Judge, concurring:

I join Judge Clifton’s opinion. I write separately to note that although our conclusion regarding the collateral order doctrine is correct under our precedents, see Wiggins v. Alameda County, 717 F.2d 466, 467-68 (9th Cir. 1983) and United States v. Baker, 603 F.2d 759, 761-62 (9th Cir. 1979), the Supreme Court has significantly limited the applicability of the collateral order doctrine in recent years. For example, the Court has held that an order of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) is not immediately appealable. See Cunningham v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. United States v. Dale E. Baker and Jake EvenblijCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
  3. Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Cunningham v. Hamilton CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API