In Re City of Memphis, West Tennessee Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Zellner Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Memphis Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A city sought an interlocutory appeal of an evidentiary ruling. The court held it had jurisdiction despite a late filing caused by court error but denied the appeal, finding the issue did not meet the strict requirements for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Legal Significance: Establishes that a district court may vacate and re-enter a § 1292(b) certification order to cure a missed deadline caused by court error, but clarifies that discretionary evidentiary rulings generally do not present a “controlling question of law” warranting interlocutory appeal.
In Re City of Memphis, West Tennessee Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Zellner Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Memphis Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs challenged the City of Memphis’s affirmative action program for construction contracts. In its defense, the City sought to introduce a statistical study conducted after the program’s enactment. The district court ruled this post-enactment evidence inadmissible and certified the order for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). However, the parties did not receive notice of the certification order from the court clerk, causing the City to miss the mandatory 10-day deadline to file its application with the court of appeals. To remedy this, the district court vacated its original certification order and re-entered it, thereby restarting the 10-day filing period. The City then filed a timely application based on the re-entered order. The plaintiffs challenged the appellate court’s jurisdiction, arguing the application was untimely because the 10-day period cannot be extended.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a federal court of appeals exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) where the district court vacated and re-entered its certification order to permit a timely filing after the appellant missed the initial deadline due to the court’s failure to provide notice?
Yes, the court has jurisdiction, but it denies the application for appeal. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a federal court of appeals exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) where the district court vacated and re-entered its certification order to permit a timely filing after the appellant missed the initial deadline due to the court’s failure to provide notice?
Conclusion
This case clarifies a procedural escape hatch for § 1292(b) deadlines caused Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
A district court has the authority to vacate and re-enter a certification Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed the jurisdictional question, distinguishing its precedent in *Woods Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A district court can vacate and reenter a § 1292(b) certification