{"id":703,"date":"2014-08-26T23:31:56","date_gmt":"2014-08-26T23:31:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=703"},"modified":"2023-07-25T09:52:36","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T13:52:36","slug":"1-mcauslan-doctrine-provides-judicial-exception-general-rule-interlocutory-orders-immediately-reviewable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/interlocutory-appeals\/1-mcauslan-doctrine-provides-judicial-exception-general-rule-interlocutory-orders-immediately-reviewable\/","title":{"rendered":"(1) THE MCAUSLAN DOCTRINE PROVIDES A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY REVIEWABLE."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Interlocutory orders \u201c\u2018are those that are provisional or temporary, or that decide some immediate point or matter but are not a final decision on the whole matter.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.ri.gov\/Courts\/SupremeCourt\/Opinions\/13-197.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Coit v. Tillinghast, No. 2013-197-Appeal<\/a> at 9 (quoting <em>Simpson v. Vose<\/em>, 702 A.2d 1176, 1177 (R.I. 1997)).<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_706\" style=\"width: 307px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2014\/08\/FINAL1.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-706\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-706\" src=\"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2014\/08\/FINAL-297x3001.jpg\" alt=\"Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at freedigitalphotos.net\" width=\"297\" height=\"300\" title=\"\"><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-706\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at freedigitalphotos.net<\/p><\/div>\n<p>It is well settled that interlocutory orders, generally are not subject to immediate appellate review unless the order or decree falls within one of the statutory exceptions to the final judgment rule.\u00a0 <em>Id<\/em>. (citing R.I. Gen. Laws \u00a7 9-24-7)).\u00a0 This principle has been addressed at length in prior Court decisions.\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/appealability\/test\/\">Past editions<\/a> of the Fast Five on Appellate Procedure have addressed such decisions.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Coit<\/em>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed a second, long established judicial exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not subject to appellate review.\u00a0 First recognized by the Supreme Court in <em>McAuslan v. McAuslan<\/em>, 83 A. 837, 841 (R.I. 1912), the McAuslan Doctrine\u00a0 provides that an interlocutory order may be reviewed before a case has concluded when the order \u201c\u2018has such an element of finality as to require immediate review by [the Supreme] Court to avoid possible injurious consequences.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 <em>Id<\/em>. (quoting <em>Chiaradio v. Falck<\/em>, 794 A.2d 494, 496 (R.I. 2002)).\u00a0 The judicially crafted exception is designed to prevent clearly imminent and irreparable harm that would otherwise result if judicial review was not available.\u00a0 <em>Id<\/em>. (citing <em>Town of Lincoln v. Cournoyer<\/em>, 375 A.2d 410, 412-13 (R.I. 1977)).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Interlocutory orders \u201c\u2018are those that are provisional or temporary, or that decide some immediate point or matter but are not a final decision on the whole matter.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Coit v. Tillinghast, No. 2013-197-Appeal at 9 (quoting Simpson v. Vose, 702 A.2d 1176, 1177&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[92],"tags":[18,13,14],"class_list":["post-703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-interlocutory-appeals","tag-appellate-practice","tag-interlocutory-appeals","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}