Second Circuit· 11/10/2022

Amara v. Cigna Corporation

Citations

53 F.4th 241

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that “[m]inisterial [postjudgment] orders do not qualify as decisions under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291”
noting an “appeal from a later order does not give us jurisdiction to hear an untimely appeal from an earlier order, which was itself an appealable final order” (cleaned up)
declining to consider evidence outside the appellate record where there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting review because the relevant documents “would make no difference in [the] resolution of [the] appeal”
“Often, determining whether a district court’s order is final is simple enough. . . . But not always.”
“The Su- preme Court has held that we lack jurisdiction over ap- peals from ministerial orders.”
“Ordinarily, material not included in the record on appeal will not be considered.” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

71 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.