Any Restriction Of Conduct Triggers Appealability
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Civil Procedure1
Example wrong choices
19431_modular_stage_tro · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because final judgment has been entered.
Why it's attractive
The litigation is still pending; the preliminary-injunction hearing is still ahead. The order does not end the case.
Why it's wrong
The litigation is still pending; the preliminary-injunction hearing is still ahead. The order does not end the case.
19431_modular_stage_tro · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because injunction-related orders are never appealable.
Why it's attractive
The right direction (No) is paired with an absolute ('never appealable') that the Gold Key rebuts via the § 1292(a)(1) preliminary-injunction exception.
Why it's wrong
The right direction (No) is paired with an absolute ('never appealable') that the Gold Key rebuts via the § 1292(a)(1) preliminary-injunction exception.
19431_modular_stage_tro · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because every order restricting conduct is appealable.
Why it's attractive
The student reads 'order restricting conduct' and assumes appealability; the Gold Key says appealability is statutorily cabined, not a default.
Why it's wrong
The student reads 'order restricting conduct' and assumes appealability; the Gold Key says appealability is statutorily cabined, not a default.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →