Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

DUPREE v. YOUNGER 

Opinion of the Court 

II 
A 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  Courts  of  Appeals  under  28
U. S. C. §1291 is limited to “appeals from . . . final decisions 
of the district courts.”  Interlocutory orders—those that do
not dispose of the whole case, like denials of summary judg-
ment—are  typically  not  immediately  appealable  under 
§1291.3  Instead, the “general rule is that ‘a party is entitled 
to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has 
been entered, in which claims of district court error at any
stage of the litigation may be ventilated.’ ”  Quackenbush v. 
Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 712 (1996); see also 15A C.
Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Proce-
dure §3905.1 (3d ed. 2022) (generally, “an appeal from final 
judgment opens the record and permits review of all rulings
that led up to the judgment”). 

Some  interlocutory  district-court  rulings,  however,  are
unreviewable  after  final  judgment  because  they  are  over-

—————— 
C. Pollara Group, LLC v. Ocean View Inv. Holding, LLC, 784 F. 3d 177, 
187  (CA3  2015)  (same);  In re  AmTrust  Financial  Corp.,  694  F. 3d  741, 
750–751 (CA6 2012) (same);  Chemetall GMBH v. ZR Energy, Inc., 320 
F. 3d 714, 719–720 (CA7 2003) (same); Banuelos v. Construction Labor-
ers’ Trust Funds for Southern Cal., 382 F. 3d 897, 902–903 (CA9 2004) 
(same); Wolfgang v. Mid-America Motorsports, Inc., 111 F. 3d 1515, 1521 
(CA10  1997)  (same);  Feld  v.  Feld,  688  F. 3d  779,  783  (CADC  2012) 
(same), with Ji v. Bose Corp., 626 F. 3d 116, 127–128 (CA1 2010) (post-
trial motion required to preserve claims of pure legal error); Varghese v. 
Honeywell  Int’l,  Inc.,  424  F. 3d  411,  422–423  (CA4  2005)  (same);  Feld 
Motor  Sports,  Inc.  v.  Traxxas,  L.  P.,  861  F. 3d  591,  596  (CA5  2017) 
(same);  American  Builders  Ins.  Co.  v.  Southern-Owners  Ins.  Co.,  56 
F. 4th 938, 950 (CA11 2023) (same); see also New York Marine & Gen. 
Ins. Co. v. Continental Cement Co., 761 F. 3d 830, 838–839 (CA8 2014)
(post-trial motion not required to preserve “preliminary” legal issues). 

3 The collateral-order doctrine recognizes exceptions to this rule.  For 
instance,  an  interlocutory  order  denying  qualified  immunity  is  some-
times immediately appealable.  Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 530 
(1985).