Tenth Circuit’s judgment, concluding “despite Digital’s position that it holds a ‘right not to stand trial’ requiring protection by way of immediate appeal, that rights under private settlement agreements can be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment.” Id. at 869, 114 S.Ct. 1992. Digital attempted to frame its rights under the private settlement agreement — a broad defense to liability and right not to stand trial — as the equivalent of government officials’ qualified immunity or a criminal defendant’s double jeopardy protection, both of which the Supreme Court previously held provided grounds for interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine. Id. at 869-71, 114 S.Ct. 1992; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662, 97
holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291 holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity to the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment