|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Perry Mason often mentions "interlocutory agreements" in his books which are rulings which are binding, but yet not final. Merging this temporary concept into the "interlocutory appeals" definition would blur these two issues, should not be done, and would be "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial." 220.127.116.11 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The two issues are separate. They should in no way be merged.
The following sentence: "Interlocutory appeals are an appeal prior to a trial due to immunity from suit of the same instance (or same action). And claiming that the court completely lacks jurisdiction under Res Judicata" is confusing and nonsensical. As a blanket statement, saying interlocutory appeals occur before trial due to immunity from suit has three problems. First, immunity from suit isn't always the issue. Second, in the US at least, Res Judicata as a matter of common law (though perhaps by statute) is not a matter for interlocutory appeal. Third, interlocutory appeal is not always a matter that occurs before trial. This whole sentence needs to be cleaned up and explained, or deleted.
Also, I would like to note that I am the user from the IP address that created the majority of the section on the collateral order doctrine. I am a student at USF Law and have taken a special interest in the subject. [email protected] User:Prana-Kun 10:43 AM, 31 July 2007, San Francisco, CA.
I redirected interlocutory proceedings and interim proceedings here, but these topics are actually wider than just the appeal. So this should be seen as an (alas) ... interim measure. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)