In the legal system, not all decisions made by a court are immediately subject to appeal. Some decisions are considered “final,” while others are “interlocutory.” Understanding the distinction between these types of decisions is crucial for litigants and attorneys alike.
An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. The term “interlocutory” refers to something that is provisional or temporary, rather than final. In legal terms, an interlocutory order is one that does not decide the case as a whole but resolves a particular issue within the case.
A final appeal is taken from a decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. In contrast, an interlocutory appeal is taken from a decision that does not resolve all the issues in the case. Generally, appellate courts only hear appeals from final judgments, but there are exceptions that allow for interlocutory appeals in certain circumstances.
One common example of an interlocutory appeal is an appeal from an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction. Because such an order can have significant immediate effects on the parties, appellate courts may allow an interlocutory appeal to review the decision before the case is fully resolved.
An interlocutory motion is a request made to the court for a ruling or order before the trial has concluded. For example, a motion for a preliminary injunction or a motion to suppress evidence are both considered interlocutory motions, as they seek a decision on a particular issue before the final judgment is rendered.
Interlocutory appeals play an important role in the judicial process by allowing parties to seek immediate review of certain critical decisions. However, because they interrupt the normal flow of litigation, courts typically limit their availability to exceptional circumstances.