Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

BULLARD v. BLUE HILLS BANK 

Opinion of the Court 

useful safety valves for promptly correcting serious errors” 
and  addressing  important  legal  questions.    Mohawk  In-
dustries,  558  U. S.,  at  111  (internal  quotation  marks  and 
brackets omitted). 

Bullard  maintains  that  interlocutory  appeals  are  inef­
fective  because  lower  courts  have  been  too  reticent  in 
granting them.  But Bullard did, after all, obtain one layer 
of  interlocutory  review  when  the  BAP  granted  him  leave 
to appeal under §158(a)(3).  He also sought certification to 
the Court of Appeals under §158(d)(2), but the BAP denied 
his  request  for  reasons  that  are  not  entirely  clear.    See 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.  The fact that  Bullard was not 
able to obtain further merits review in the First Circuit in 
this  particular  instance  does  not  undermine  our  expecta­
tion that lower courts will certify and accept interlocutory 
appeals from plan denials in appropriate cases. 

* 
Because  the  Court  of  Appeals  correctly  held  that  the

* 

* 

order denying confirmation was not final, its judgment is 

Affirmed.