An interlocutory appeal had some matters entangled with it in Jiao v. Xu (not unlike the quantum entanglement recently photographed for the first time, right):
“The preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order made appealable by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The declaratory relief constitutes a final order, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The turnover order is likewise final, and we have appellate jurisdiction to review it under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Typically, we would not have jurisdiction over the district court’s
denial of Xu’s motion to dismiss. But to the extent the
underpinnings of Xu’s motion are inextricably intertwined with the district court’s subsequent rulings challenged on appeal, we determine that we have jurisdiction to address those issues. See Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v. Laplace Towing Corp., 964 F.2d 1571, 1580 (5th Cir. 1992) (‘[O]ur jurisdiction is not limited to the specific [injunctive] order appealed from, and we may review all matters which establish the immediate basis for granting injunctive relief.’); see also In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig. (No. II), 200 F.3d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 2000) (reaching denial of motion to dismiss as part of § 1292(a)(1) appeal where issues were ‘so entangled as to arrive here together’ and ‘[d]elaying review . . . would make no practical sense’).”
No. 20-20106 (March 11, 2022) (emphasis added, footnote and certain citations omitted).
The post Appellate jurisdiction and its entanglements appeared first on 600 Camp.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/cFWIvty
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment