collateral order doctrine in Delaware

2025Court No. 19, 652 A.2d 574, 576 (Del. 1995)). 3 of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.’”8 Under the collateral-order doctrine, an order is final and may be appealed without compliance with Rule 42 if it (i) determines matters independent of the issues involved in the proceeding itself, (ii) binds persons who are non-parties in the underlying proceeding, and (iii) has a substantial, continuing effect on important rights.9 Because Father is a party to this litigation, the Family Court’s fee decision does not satisfy the collat

2022Compare Evans v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 19, 652 A.2d 574 (Del. 1995) (allowing an appeal from a finding of civil contempt under the collateral-order doctrine); IMO Acierno, 1990 WL 116957 (Del.

2025May 20, 2008); Gannett Co. v. State, 565 A.2d 895, 900 (Del. 1989). 5 See TransPerfect, 2023 WL 6991983 , at *2 (rejecting argument that order requiring party to litigation to pay fees of former custodian was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, and dismissing appeal as interlocutory).

1995This Court applied the collateral order doctrine six years ago in Gannett Co., Inc. v. State, Del.Supr., 565 A.2d 895, 899-900 (1989).

2025Oct. 20, 2023) (citing Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982)). 2 collateral orders constitute final judgments’” that may be appealed before the underlying litigation is finally resolved.2 The doctrine applies only to “that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.”3 Under the collateral-order doctrine, an order is final and may be appe

2025Oct. 20, 2023) (citing Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982)). 2 collateral orders constitute final judgments’” that may be appealed before the underlying litigation is finally resolved.2 The doctrine applies only to “that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.”3 Under the collateral-order doctrine, an order is final and may be appe

2025Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47 (1949) (alteration in original)). 9 Id.; TransPerfect, 2023 WL 6991983 , at *2. 10 See Schiavo, 2025 WL 1693662 , at *2 (holding that orders imposing sanctions on plaintiff- appellant for civil contempt did not satisfy collateral-order doctrine because he was a party to the litigation); TransPerfect, 2023 WL 6991983 , at *2 (rejecting argument that order requiring party to litigation to pay fees of former custodian was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, and dismissing appeal as interlocutory); see also Campbell v. Eagle Force Holdings, LLC, 2019 WL

2019Loan, 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)). 10 Id. at 575-77 (holding that $1,000 sanction imposed by the Justice of the Peace Court on a lawyer collecting a judgment for a client was a final appealable judgment under the collateral order doctrine). 6 (10) Nor do the orders have a substantial, continuing effect on important rights as the appellants contend.

2024Ctr. v. Villare, 2008 WL 2137860, at *1 (Del.

2019Ctr. v. Villare, 2008 WL 2137860, at *1 (Del.

2022See also Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198, 205 (1999) (holding that an order imposing sanctions—as distinguished from a finding of civil contempt—was not reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine and noting that an evaluation of the appropriateness of sanctions often will be “inextricably intertwined” with the merits of an action).

2020The collateral order doctrine “only applies to ‘that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.’”2 The Superior Court’s dismissal of Hubert-Toussaint’s counterclaims, which were based 1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880 (Del.

2020The collateral order doctrine “only applies to ‘that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.’”2 The Superior Court’s dismissal of Hubert-Toussaint’s counterclaims, which were based 1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880 (Del.