Opinion ID: 3013363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We generally have jurisdiction to review only final decisions of district courts. 28 U.S.C. S 1291. A denial of summary judgment, from which the defendants appeal here, usually does not qualify as a final decision for purposes of S 1291 because, far from finally deciding the case, it is a decision to permit the litigation to continue. See Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241, 1245 (3d Cir. 1994). Under the collateral order doctrine, however, we have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s decision if it (1) conclusively determines a disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-25 (1985) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)). Pre-trial denials of absolute or qualified immunity are frequently appropriate for appellate review under the collateral order doctrine. An appeal from such a denial may conclusively determine the disputed question of the defendants’ entitlement to immunity, a question that is conceptually separate from the merits of the case. See id. at 527-28. And because immunity is intended to protect the 8 defendant from suit, id. at 526 (emphasis in original) -- not simply from an adverse judgment at the conclusion of litigation -- a grant of immunity after a final judgment would come too late. Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 312 (1995). We have jurisdiction to review a pre-trial denial of immunity under the collateral order doctrine only to the extent that it raises questions of law. See Giuffre, 31 F.3d at 1245 ([A]n order denying qualified or absolute immunity, to the extent that the order turns on an issue of law, is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.) (citation omitted). We may not review the District Court’s identification of the facts that are subject to genuine dispute, but instead we review the legal issues in light of the facts that the District Court determined had sufficient evidentiary support for summary judgment purposes. See Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia , 288 F.3d 57, 59, 61 (3d Cir. 2002).4 And, of course, we give de novo review to those legal issues. Giuffre, 31 F.3d at 1251.