Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)

Citation: Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
Parent Document: Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2007-05-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5143156/landise-v-mauro/ ↗

Full Text

540 chars

First, Landise claims that this court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Under the collateral order doctrine, an appeal of an interlocutory order is permissible where the order “(1) conclusively determinéis] a disputed question of law; (2) resolve[s] an important issue separate from the merits of the case; and (3)[is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” McAteer, supra note 5, 908 A.2d at 1169.

Other Sections in This Document (27)

Full Text