final decisions of the district courts," certain collateral orders merit interlocutory review because they "finally determine claims of right. § 1291 ordinarily limits appellate jurisdiction to "appeals from. 2d 238 (1995), we will henceforth require the District Courts to specify those material facts that are and are not subject to genuine dispute and explain their materiality.Īlthough 28 U.S.C. So that we can carry out our review function without exceeding the limits of our jurisdiction under Johnson v. We also announce a supervisory rule to be followed in all subsequent cases in which a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity is denied on the ground that material facts are subject to genuine dispute. Accordingly, we remand the case to the District Court so that the facts found to be in dispute can be specified. Because the District Court did not identify this set of facts, we find that we are greatly hampered in deciding this appeal. The scope of our jurisdiction to review the decision of the District Court depends upon the precise set of facts that the District Court viewed as subject to genuine dispute.
In denying that motion, the District Court held, without elaboration, that the plaintiffs had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding their Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. Defendants John Salkowski and Craig McGowan, two police officers, appeal from an order of the District Court denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. § 1983 arises out of a police shooting in Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania.
0 kommentar(er)
