1. In qualified liability cases, Supreme court prece dent shows an Appellate court has Jurisdiction to hear a Rights to Due Process, Gross Negligence, and Premises Liability interlocutory appeal relat ing to denial of a qualified liability laws based on whether the Appellee 's and court actions violated clearly established law because this is a legal question. (See Carlson v. Town of Smithfield, A. 2d 1129, 1131 (R.1. 1999) and Rule 53(a) (20(c). Does the Opinion conflicts with precedent because it dismissed, for lack of Jurisdiction Appellant inter locutory Appeal Related to a Denial of qualified li ability cases based on whether Appellee 's and the court actions violated clearly established laws.

2. In qualified Rights to Due Process by law cases, Supreme court precedent mandates a court con ducting the clearly established analysis identify one prior case with similar circumstances that put the Appellee 's and the court on notice their actions would violate clearly established law. (citing Bourg v. Bristol Boat Co. 705 A. 2d. 969, 971 (R.I. 1998) The court further held that "Cardinal " test ab sence of Due Process of law in Administrative is the Presence and absence of the rudiments of fair play long known to law; does the Opinion conflict with precedent because it fails to identify one prior case that showed Appellee 's and the courts actions violated clearly established law. None of the Pre ponderance of evidence making a "Prima Facie " case however supported the Judgment in favor of Appellee 's and is Appellant therefore entitled to qualified Rights to due process of law?

3. In Related case law put it in and the state this case explicitly, rejected the argument that case law showed Premises liability, Gross Negligence, and interfering with Appellant Rights to Due Process of law Mr. Nevels also being the injured party in this case was clearly established violation of Ap pellant Rights. Does the Opinion conflict with precedent by determining a dismissal and has de nied his case is clearly established in all liability cases. When this exact argument was rejected in (Barrett v. Barrett) in this injury case.

4. In qualified liability and Rights to Due Process of law cases, the court imposes a heightened plead ing standard, the Opinion acknowledges Appel lee's and the court excluded the Appellant Rights as a living man/Noble citizen with a verified claim as the injured party in this injury case from the proposed Trial by Jury of my peers these instruc tions, "never " used the word "Common law Rights violations " of Due Process of law in their Response to Mr. Nevels complaint and were less than clear during the proceeding about exactly which theo ries they were advancing. (Shirley v. Pitman Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007). Did the Panel 's Opinion Conflict with precedent heightened pleading was nevertheless satisfied and the lack of Jurisdiction, gross Negligence, Promises liability, and Violation of Mr. Nevels Rights is a claim in this injury case?

In qualified liability cases, whether an Appellate court has jurisdiction to hear a Rights to Due Process, Gross Negligence, and Premises Liability interlocutory appeal relating to denial of qualified liability laws based on whether the Appellee's and court actions violated clearly established law