Legal Definitions - motion for leave to appeal

A motion for leave to appeal (often abbreviated as MLA) is a special request made to a higher court (an appellate court) asking for permission to review a specific decision made by a lower courtbefore the entire case has concluded. Typically, appellate courts only review final judgments that resolve an entire case. However, a motion for leave to appeal allows for an exception when a lower court's decision, though not final, meets very specific criteria.

Permission is usually granted only if the lower court's decision:

• Conclusively resolves an important issue: The decision must be a final word on a particular matter.
• Is separate from the main subject of the lawsuit: The issue being appealed must be distinct from the core facts or legal arguments of the case itself.
• Would be effectively unreviewable later: Waiting until the end of the entire trial to appeal the decision would make it impossible to correct the error or would cause irreparable harm that cannot be undone.

Here are some examples of when a motion for leave to appeal might be filed:

• Example 1: Government Immunity

  A city police officer is sued for alleged misconduct. The officer argues they are protected by qualified immunity, a legal principle that shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The trial court denies the officer's request to dismiss the case based on this immunity, ruling that the lawsuit can proceed to trial. The officer believes this immunity issue is crucial and separate from whether they actually committed the alleged misconduct. If they are forced to go through a full trial, the fundamental protection offered by qualified immunity (which is protection from the trial itself) will be lost, even if they win on appeal later. The officer files a motion for leave to appeal to the appellate court, asking it to review the immunity decision immediately, rather than waiting for the entire trial to conclude.

  Explanation: The trial court's decision denying immunity is an "interlocutory order" (not a final judgment). The issue of immunity is "collateral" (separate) from the merits of the alleged misconduct. Crucially, waiting until after a full trial would defeat the purpose of immunity, making the decision "effectively unreviewable later" in terms of avoiding the burden of trial.

• Example 2: Disclosure of Privileged Information

  In a lawsuit between two corporations, one party requests access to a large set of internal documents from the other. The second corporation claims these documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and refuses to hand them over. The trial court reviews the documents privately and orders the second corporation to disclose them, ruling that they are not privileged. The second corporation believes this order is a serious error that will reveal highly confidential and proprietary information, causing irreparable harm to their business. They argue that once disclosed, this information cannot be "un-disclosed" even if they win an appeal after the entire case is over. They file a motion for leave to appeal, seeking immediate review of the trial court's order to disclose the documents.

  Explanation: The order to disclose documents is an "interlocutory order." The question of attorney-client privilege is "collateral" to the main business dispute of the lawsuit. The harm of disclosing privileged information would be irreversible and "effectively unreviewable later" if they had to wait for a final judgment to appeal.