Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal · ¶43

Initially, this Court applied the “effectively unreviewable” requirement to capture orders that would become moot by the time of final judgment. See Cohen, 337 U. S., at 546. For those orders, a strict application of the final-judgment rule “would practically defeat the right to any review at all.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 324–325 (1940). We first applied this reasoning in Cohen, which involved a district-court order that excused the plaintiffs from a litigation-bond requirement. 337 U. S., at 544–547. Applicable state law required the plaintiffs to post such a bond to secure their obligation to pay the defendant's litigation expenses and attorney's fees if their claims failed. Cohen held that the order excusing the plaintiffs from posting that bond was immediately appealable because it would “not be merged in final judgment.” Id., at 546. Regardless of who prevailed…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.