Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): order is reversed; and (3) the need to develop a uniform body of law, giving consideration to the existence of inconsistent orders of other courts and whether the question presented by the challenged order will not otherwise be reviewable upon entry of final judgment. Tenn. R.App. P. 9(a). As applied to criminal actions, the Rule specifically provides that “[permission to appeal under this rule may be sought by the state and defendant in criminal actions.” Tenn. RApp appeal when a trial court precludes the death penalty by finding a defendant mentally retarded leaves no appellate recourse at all. We conclude that the question raised in this case is one appropriately raised under Rule 9(a)(1). Cf. People v. Super. Ct., 40 Cal.4th 999, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 851, 155 P.3d 259, 264-65 (Cal.2007) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy because the trial courts issuance of temporary orders is not subject to interlocutory appeal (B) holding that because the standard of review for factual determinations on direct appeal is higher than the standard applied during an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction the interlocutory appeal normally will not establish law of the case on factual matters (C) holding that although the california legislature did not expressly provide for appeal from a trial courts determination that a defendant was mentally retarded allowing such an appeal was consistent with california penal code section 1238 which provides for interlocutory review of orders or judgments dismissing or otherwise terminating all or any portion of the action (D) holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction (E) holding that a district courts refusal to address the merits of defendants motion asserting qualified immunity prior to the close of discovery was a conclusive determination for the purpose of allowing an interlocutory appeal
Output (English): holding that a district courts refusal to address the merits of defendants motion asserting qualified immunity prior to the close of discovery was a conclusive determination for the purpose of allowing an interlocutory appeal