reviewing a district court’s remand order was peripheral to that concern. Moreover, the parties in Thermtron did not brief the question, our opinion does not refer to Catlin or its definition of “final decisions,” and our opinion nowhere addresses whether any class of remand order might be appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Indeed, the only support Thermtron cites for the proposition that remand orders are reviewable only by mandamus, not by appeal, is Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 (1875), the superannuated reasoning of which is of little vitality today, compare id., at 508 (deeming a “writ of error to review what has been done” an inappropriate vehicle for reviewing a court of appeals’ “refusal to hear and decide”), with Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 10-11, n. 11 (<HOLDING>). Admittedly, remand orders like the one
holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order holding that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable because it is not listed in the uaa statute and because it is not final holding that a stay order is appealable because it amounts to a refusal to hear and decide a case holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable