Comments on: The continuing saga of Lisa Goodman and Brad Hoyt http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2009/10/08/the-continuing-saga-of-lisa-goodman-and-brad-hoyt/ If it’s legal, you can discuss it here Wed, 23 May 2012 17:38:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous Appellate Nerd http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2009/10/08/the-continuing-saga-of-lisa-goodman-and-brad-hoyt/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Anonymous Appellate Nerd Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:18:16 +0000 #comment-151 It appears doubtful that an appeal is proper at this stage. The court has questioned its jurisdiction and ordered the parties to submit memoranda. In the order, the court summarized the collateral-order doctrine, which permits appeal from an order not listed in the appellate rules, as requiring the order to: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. All three are certainly arguable, but the last seems to me the hardest for the city to overcome. Liability is usually reviewable concurrently with damages. The city would not have been foreclosed from arguing, on appeal after waiting for a damages verdict, both that it had not violated Hoyt's rights and that, if it had, he was not entitled to the damages Judge Aldrich set. The order is available on P-MACS, http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/publicLogin.jsp, and the case number is A09-1762. It appears doubtful that an appeal is proper at this stage. The court has questioned its jurisdiction and ordered the parties to submit memoranda. In the order, the court summarized the collateral-order doctrine, which permits appeal from an order not listed in the appellate rules, as requiring the order to:

(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

All three are certainly arguable, but the last seems to me the hardest for the city to overcome. Liability is usually reviewable concurrently with damages. The city would not have been foreclosed from arguing, on appeal after waiting for a damages verdict, both that it had not violated Hoyt’s rights and that, if it had, he was not entitled to the damages Judge Aldrich set.

The order is available on P-MACS, http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/publicLogin.jsp, and the case number is A09-1762.

]]>