Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 317.0

524us1$86Q 02-17-99 18:23:51 PAGES OPINPGT

272

FORNEY v. APFEL

Opinion of the Court

mand order, as the Government has every right to do. See
Finkelstein, supra, at 619.

The Solicitor General points to many cases that ﬁnd a right
to appeal in roughly comparable circumstances. See Brief
for Respondent 21, n. 12 (citing Gargoyles, Inc. v. United
States, 113 F. 3d 1572 (CA Fed. 1997) (permitting appeal
where prevailing party recovered reasonable royalty but was
denied lost proﬁts); Castle v. Rubin, 78 F. 3d 654 (CADC
1996) (per curiam) (permitting appeal where prevailing
party awarded partial backpay but denied reinstatement and
front pay); La Plante v. American Honda Motor Co., 27 F.
3d 731 (CA1 1994) (permitting appeal where prevailing party
awarded compensatory but not punitive damages); Graziano
v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (CA3 1991) (permitting appeal
where prevailing party awarded damages but denied at-
torney’s fees); Ragen Corp. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp., 912
F. 2d 619 (CA3 1990) (permitting appeal where prevailing
party denied consequential damages); Carrigan v. Exxon
Co., U. S. A., 877 F. 2d 1237 (CA5 1989) (permitting appeal
where prevailing party awarded damages but not injunc-
tive relief)).

The contrary authority that amicus, through diligent ef-
forts, has found arose in less closely analogous circumstances
and consequently does not persuade us. Brief for Amicus
Curiae in Support of the Judgment Below 17, and n. 13; see,
e. g., Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 518 (1956) (order
granting Government’s motion to dismiss indictment without
prejudice as not appealable by defendant in part because the
dismissal would not be “ﬁnal” (emphasis added)); see also
CH2M Hill Central, Inc. v. Herman, 131 F. 3d 1244, 1246–
1247 (CA7 1997) (claimant cannot appeal agency appeals
panel remand of case for further agency hearing, for appeals
order is not type of ﬁnal agency decision that is reviewable
under relevant judicial review statute); Director, Ofﬁce of
Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Bath Iron Works
Corp., 853 F. 2d 11, 16 (CA1 1988) (same); Stripe-A-Zone v.