California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 237 Cal.App.4th 759 (Cal. App. 2015):
17 These policies are based on the premise that piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals tend to be oppressive and costly: e.g., rather than ending litigation, interlocutory appeals tend to result in a multiplicity of appeals; early resort to the appellate court may produce uncertainty, or at a minimum delay and potential futility, in the trial court; the trial court may change a ruling or make a different ruling that obviates an interlocutory appeal; later actions by the trial court provide a more complete record that may affect the appearance of earlier error or establish its harmlessness; and a full adjudication by the trial court will assist the reviewing court to remedy existing error by allowing for more specific directions on remand. (Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 966, 231 Cal.Rptr. 241.)
17 These policies are based on the premise that piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals tend to be oppressive and costly: e.g., rather than ending litigation, interlocutory appeals tend to result in a multiplicity of appeals; early resort to the appellate court may produce uncertainty, or at a minimum delay and potential futility, in the trial court; the trial court may change a ruling or make a different ruling that obviates an interlocutory appeal; later actions by the trial court provide a more complete record that may affect the appearance of earlier error or establish its harmlessness; and a full adjudication by the trial court will assist the reviewing court to remedy existing error by allowing for more specific directions on remand. (Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 966, 231 Cal.Rptr. 241.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.