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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ISSUES PRESENTED 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 relating 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.I. 1999) and Rule 53(a) (20(c). Does the Opinion conflicts with precedent because it dismissed, for lack of Jurisdiction Appellant interlocutory Appeal Related to a Denial of qualified liability 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 conducting 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 Preponderance of evidence making a “Prima Facie” case however supported the Judgment in favor of ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED ~ Continued Appellee’s and is Appellant therefore entitled to qualified Rights to due process of law? 8. 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 Appellant Rights. Does the Opinion conflict with ; precedent by determining a dismissal and has denied 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 pleading standard, the Opinion acknowledges Appellee’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 instructions, “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 theories 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? ii : ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REHEARING EN BANC: AND RULE 35 STATEMENT OF REASON(S) DARREL CONELL NEVELS Respectfully request a Rehearing En Banc because the Panel’s Opinion in this Appeal conflicts with the precedents of the Supreme : Court of appeal Alabama and this court. : A. The Opinion conflicts with US. Supreme Court precedent in qualified case related (1) Jurisdiction and (2) the clearly established law analysis. 1. The Opinion conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent because it dismissed and denied for lack of Jurisdiction, DARREL CONELL NEVELS interlocutory appeal relating to a denied of qualified Rights to Due Process by law based on whether Appellees and the court actions violated clearly established law, which is a legal . question for which this court has Jurisdiction. Op. at (Barrett v. Barrett) (Satink v. Holland Township (D.N.J.1940) : 2. The Opinion conflict with U.S. Supreme court precedent because i