What is reasoning for option 1, 2 or 3?
Ccp 906 clause.

Question

What is reasoning for option 1, 2 or 3? 
 
Ccp 906 recites.  
'Provisions of this section do not authorize reviewing court to review any decision from which an appeal might have been taken'. 
In plain english does it mean that: 
1. If appeal should have been taken earlier, it is banned; Or 
2. If appeal on order was already taken, It cannot be brought again; OR 
3. If appeal on particular order was not done before, it can be filed. 
 
What is reasoning for option 1, 2 or 3?

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Based on CCP 906's language, option 1 is the correct interpretation - if an appeal should have been taken earlier but wasn't, it is now banned. This aligns with fundamental principles of appellate procedure and the importance of timely appeals. 
 
The reasoning behind this interpretation stems from the phrase "might have been taken," which refers to past opportunities for appeal that were available but not utilized. This provision prevents parties from circumventing appeal deadlines and promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring issues are raised at the appropriate time. 
 
The key policy rationale is to maintain order in the appellate process and prevent parties from getting a "second bite at the apple" when they failed to exercise their appeal rights within the prescribed timeframes. Options 2 and 3 don't align with the statutory language as well - option 2 deals with appeals already taken (which would use "was" rather than "might have been"), and option 3 suggests future possibilities, which contradicts the past tense used in the statute.

Q: What is reasoning for option 1, 2 or 3? Ccp 906 clause.