Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffjurisdictionliabilityappealmotionrespondent
plaintiffjurisdictiondamagesliabilityappealmotionrespondent

Related Cases

The Florida Bar v. Neale, 384 So.2d 1264
View Case »
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 1 Media L. Rep. 1310
View Case »
South Carolina Nat. Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,228
View Case »
Laskey v. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW), 638 F.2d 954, 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2425, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. 1262
View Case »
Kronberg v. LaRouche, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1443934
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,816, 1980-81 Trade Cases P 63,796

Facts

Respondent is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in four consolidated product-liability suits against petitioner and other manufacturers. Petitioner moved to disqualify respondent due to an alleged conflict of interest, claiming that respondent's representation of its liability insurer could influence his handling of the plaintiffs' claims. The District Court allowed respondent to continue representing the plaintiffs after obtaining consent from both the plaintiffs and the insurer, leading to petitioner's appeal.

Respondent is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in four product-liability suits seeking damages from petitioner and other manufacturers of multipiece truck tire rims for injuries caused by alleged defects in their products.

Issue

Whether a party may take an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to disqualify counsel for the opposing party in a civil case.

This case presents the question whether a party may take an appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, from a district court order denying a motion to disqualify counsel for the opposing party in a civil case.

Rule

Orders denying motions to disqualify opposing party's counsel in civil cases are not appealable final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Orders denying motions to disqualify the opposing party's counsel in a civil case are not appealable final decisions under § 1291.

Analysis

The Court determined that the Eighth Circuit erred in reaching the merits of the District Court's order because it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The finality requirement of § 1291 is jurisdictional, and the Court emphasized that an order denying disqualification does not fall within the collateral order exception, as it does not conclusively determine a disputed question that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

The Court of Appeals, after properly concluding that the District Court's order was not immediately appealable under § 1291, erred in reaching the merits of the District Court's order.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We therefore hold that because the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it was without authority to decide the merits.

Who won?

Respondent prevailed because the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was not permissible under § 1291, affirming the District Court's decision to allow continued representation.

Respondent is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in four consolidated product-liability suits in Federal District Court against petitioner and other manufacturers.

You must be