Opinion ID: 471591
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The nature of the action taken by the district court

Text: 55 At the risk of being pedantic, I should commence by restating the general rule of federal appellate jurisdiction, one which at times seems honored more in breach than in compliance, limiting that jurisdiction [to] appeals from final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. This provision manifests a firm congressional policy against interlocutory or 'piecemeal' appeals, Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2038, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), and is the dominant rule in federal appellate practice. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 1057, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). It follows from this rule, that for an interlocutory decision to be appealable, the district court must render a ruling which conclusively determine[s] the disputed question. Mitchell v. Forsyth, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457-2458, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978). Thus, the question appealed from must involve a classical Rule 56 issue of law, in which there are no material questions of fact which are disputed. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra. To belabor the obvious, it follows that summary judgment cannot be granted where there are material questions of fact in dispute. 56 The first ground for our lack of appellate jurisdiction in this case is that, by virtue of the nature of the action taken by the trial court, it failed to make a conclusive determination. The district court did not rule on the merits of the qualified immunity question but rather decided that it could not so rule because there were contested material questions of fact. The following dialogue took place between the district judge and appellant/defendant's counsel: 57 Tr. 7 THE COURT: I think that there are clear issues of fact here which must be resolved, whether by the Court or by the Jury. 58 It is not completely without controversy whether Mrs. Abadia was or was not a confidential employee, what her duties were. 59