Opinion ID: 368126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Appellate Jurisdiction

Text: 9 At the outset, we must determine whether this court has jurisdiction to conduct the review requested by State Farm, despite the willingness and consent of the parties. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Johnson, 586 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2182, 60 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1979); Golden Villa Spa, Inc. v. Health Industries, Inc., 549 F.2d 1363 (10th Cir. 1977). Generally, courts of appeal review only final orders of the district courts. See : 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 10 In Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed.2d 1528 (1949), the Supreme Court addressed the final order requirement of § 1291, Supra : 11 (Section 1291) disallow(s) appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete. Appeal gives the upper court a power of review, not one of intervention. So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal. . . . 12 Nor does a statute permit appeals, even from fully consummated decisions, where they are but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge. The purpose is to combine in one review all stages of the proceeding that effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results. . . . 13 337 U.S., at p. 546, 69 S.Ct., at p. 1225. 14 Although some courts have held that a lower court's abstention order is final for purposes of appeal, 2 this court has held that mandamus is available to review a trial court's grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. Pet Milk Company v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963). We believe that our views expressed in Pet Milk Company were recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, 437 U.S. 655, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978). 15 In Calvert Fire Insurance Company, supra, the court granted certiorari to consider the propriety of the use of mandamus to review a District Court's decision to defer to concurrent state proceedings . . . . Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, supra, at 657-658, 98 S.Ct. at 2555. 16 In affirming the district court's stay of its proceedings pending the outcome of concurrent state litigation, the court extensively discussed the mandamus remedy and reaffirmed the rule that a district court's decision to defer proceedings because of concurrent state litigation is generally committed to the discretion of that court. Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, supra, at 665, 98 S.Ct. at 2559. 17 Thus, in our view, State Farm could have attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court only by means of a petition for writ of mandamus, rather than by appeal. Nonetheless, we are in agreement that we may treat the appeal as an application for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See : Hartland v. Alaska Airlines, 544 F.2d 992 (9th Cir. 1976); Flora Construction Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1962), Cert. denied, 371 U.S. 950, 83 S.Ct. 505, 9 L.Ed.2d 499 (1963).