Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 26 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26

324

BEHRENS v. PELLETIER

Breyer, J., dissenting

in a first pretrial appeal is insufficiently important if the possibility remains of a second pretrial appeal, or because the interest asserted in a second pretrial appeal is insufficiently important if there has already been a first pretrial appeal.

As I said, precedent permits this result because, under that precedent, the importance of the interest (an interlocu-tory appeal is needed to protect) is one necessary requirement for application of the technical legal labels "final" or "collateral order." More importantly, meaning in law depends upon an understanding of purpose. Law's words, however technical they may sound, are not magic formulas; they must be read in light of their purposes, if we are to avoid essentially arbitrary applications and harmful results. For the reasons I have set forth, precedent, read in this way, does more than permit—it requires—a single interlocutory appeal. I therefore dissent.

Page:   Index   Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26

Last modified: October 4, 2007