Darrel Conell Nevels v. Piggly Wiggly Corporation, et al.

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 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