I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 9 2 9 - S CT HI NDS COUNTY, M

I S S I S S I PP I , AND SHERI

FF M ALC OLM

M CM I LL I N, I N H I SOFFICI

AL CAPAC I TY v. VERN P ERKI NS, I NDI VI DUALLY

, AND AS REP RES ENTAT I VE OF T

HE H EI RSAT LAW AN D W RONGF UL DE

AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF S AUN KEI TH PER KI

NS- W I LFORD, DECEAS

ED D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 20/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L . KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT F I RS T J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : M I CH E L L E T OL L E HI GH J . LAW S ON H ES TE R ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: J AM ES LE E KELLY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A PPE A L D I SM I SSE D - 06/ 30/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . In th is w ro n g fu l de a th ca se , a p riso n e r e sc a p e d fro m th e c u sto d y o f th e H in d s C o u n ty s her i f f , and, w hi l e eva di ng captur e, the es cape e s truck a ped est r i an w i th a s t ol en vehi cl e. T h e p ed estri an d ied, an d a w ron g ful d ea th su itw as fi led ag ains t th e C o u n ty. T h e tri al co u rt deni ed t he County’ s mot i on f ors umm a ry j ud gmen tba s e d o n i t s c l a i m of s ov e r ei gn

### 2

i m m uni ty, and the C ount y appea l ed. Fi ndi ng no r i ghtt o a ppeal a pr etr i al deni al of s over ei gn i m m uni ty, w e di s m i s s the appe al beca us e of i t s i nt er l ocut ory natur e. F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2. A ccor di ng t o the compl ai nt , on J ul y 14, 2005, I nm at e T r avi s Sm i th es cape d f r om t he cus t ody of

the H i nds C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epart m ent . W hi l e on the run, Sm i th obt ai ned an a u to m o b ile a n d , as h e w a s d riv in g , stru c k a p e d e stria n , S a u n K e ith P e rk in s-W ill ifo rd . S m ith fl e d th e s c e n e o f t h e a c c id e n t, a n d P e rk in s -W illif o rd d ie d o f h is in

ju ri e s . ¶ 3 . V e rn P e rk in s, in d iv id u a lly a n d a s th e rep re se n tativ e o f th e d e c e d e n t’s w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ar i es , f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tthe H i nds C ounty Sher i f f , i n hi s of

f i ci al capa ci ty, and the H i nds C ounty B oar d of

Super vi s or s ( col l ect i vel y, “H i nds C ounty”) . Per ki ns al l eged thatt he C o u n ty w as li ab le fo r P erk ins-W il li ford ’s d ea th b ec au se ith ad “fa il ed to u se o rdin ary ca re i n the exe r ci s e of

i t s non- di s cr et i onary dut y t o conf i ne [ Sm i th] and pre venthi s esc ape. ” The compl ai ntal s o al l eged that“any a nd al l act i ons orom i s s i ons on the partof ‘ pol i ce empl oyees ’ r el at i ng t o the eve nt s her ei n compl ai ned of , w ere i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of t he s a fe ty a n d w e ll- b e in g o f P la in tif f’ s d e c e d e n t.” ¶4. H i nds C ount y f

i l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s and/ or f or s um m ary j ud gm ent , ar gui ng t hat i tw as i m m une f

r om l i abi l i ty underthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct( M T C A ) , M i s s i s s i ppi C od e S ect i on 11 -46-9 ( S up p. 20 10 ). P erki ns fi led a respo nse, at t aching S m i th’s arres t r ecor d, a depos i t i on tr ans cr i ptof the deputy s her i f

f w ho had bee n guar di ng Sm i th the day of hi s es cape , the ac ci dentr eport , and the tr ans cr i ptof Sm i th’ s gui l ty pl eas t o f el ony es cape and l eavi ng the s cene of

an ac ci dent . I ti s notcl earf r om the r ecor d w hetherther e w as a hea r i ng;

### 3

b u t o n A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , th e c irc u it ju d g e su m m a rily d e n ied th e C o u n ty ’s m o tio n , sta tin g in its or derthat“ther e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actt o be r es ol ved i n thi s m att er . ” ¶5. H i nds C ounty f

i l ed i t s not i ce of appea l on M ay 19, 2010, w i thi n the t i m e f or f i l i ng a di r ectappea l , butout s i de the t i m e f orf i l i ng a pet i t i on f

ori nt er l ocut ory appeal . A l though t he deni al of i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s and/ orf ors um m ary j udgm entw as an i nt er l ocut ory or der , t he C ounty a l l eged i n i t s not i ce of a ppeal thata de ni al of s over ei gn i m m uni t y sho uld be aut om at i cal l y appea l abl e. T he pl ai nt i f f di d notf i l e w i th thi s Courta mot i on t o di s m i s s t he appea l . I ns t ead, Per ki ns ar gues i n hi s r epl y br i ef thatthi s C our ts hould di s m i s s the appe al and aw ard at t orney’s f

ees. D i s cus s i on ¶6. W e ar e as ked t o det erm i ne w hether deni al s of m ot i ons f or s um m ary j udgm entbas ed on cl ai m s of

s over ei gn i m m uni ty ar e di r ect l y a ppeal abl e des pi t e thei ri nt er l ocut ory natur e. Q ues t i ons of

j ur i s di ct i on ar e ques t i ons of l aw , r evi ew ed de novo . RAS Famil y Pa r tne rs, LP v. Onna m Bilox i

, LLC , 968 So. 2d 926, 928 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng T r ust m ark N at ’l B ank v. Johnson , 8 6 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 )) . ¶7. T he part i es do not di s pute t hat t he den i al of a m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent i s an interl o cu tory o rde r or tha t th e o n ly m e a n s o f see k ing ap p ell ate rev iew o f an interl o cu tory o rd e r is b y fil in g a p e tit io n w ith th is C o u rt u n d e r R u le 5 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re . T h a t ru le p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: (a ) P e ti ti o n f

o r P e r m is s io n t o A p p e a l. A n a ppeal f r om an i nt er l ocut ory or der m ay be s oughti f a subs t ant i al bas i s exi s t s f ora di f f er ence of

opi ni on on a ques t i on of

l aw as t o w hi ch appe l l at e r es ol ut i on m ay:

### 4

( 1) M at er i al l y advanc e the t erm i nat i on of the l i t i gat i on and avoi d exce pt i onal expens e t o t he part i es ; or ( 2) Pr ot ecta party f

r om s ubs t ant i al and i rr epar abl e i nj ury; or ( 3) R es ol ve an i s s ue of

gener al i m por t ance i n the admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce. A ppeal f r om s uch an or derm ay be s oughtby f i l i ng a pet i t i on f

orperm i s s i on t o appea l w i th the cl erk of the Supr eme C our tw i thi n 21 days af t erthe entry of su c h o rd e r in th e tr ia l c o u rt w ith p ro o f o f se rv ice o n th e trial ju d g e a n d a ll o th e r p a rties to th e a c tio n in th e trial c o u rt. M .R .A .P . 5 (a ). See al

s o M . R . C . P . 54 (b) (pro v iding that a jud g m en t i s n o t f inal, an d there fore notappea l abl e, i f

i t“adj udi cat es few er t han al l of the cl ai m s orthe r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w e r t h a n a ll th e p a rt ie s ” ). ¶8. H i nds C ounty di d not f i l e a pet i t i on f

or i nt er l ocut ory appea l w i thi n 21 day s of the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of

i t s m ot i on forsumm ary j udgm ent . I ns t ead, t he C ounty fi l ed a not i ce of appea l pur s uantt o R ul e 4 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, w hi ch governs appea l s a s of

r i ght . T he C ounty a r gues thatw e s houl d a doptthe f eder al a ppr oach , w hic h al l ow s appea l s as of

r i ghtf r om or der s denyi ng qual i f i ed orabs ol ut e i m m uni ty t o t he ext ent th e y a r e b a s e d o n q u e s t i o n s o f l a w. ¶9. Feder al court s of appea l have j ur i s di ct i on over“f i nal deci s i ons ” of

di s tr i ctcourt s . 28 U . S. C . § 129 1 (2006). T hus , the court s of appea l m ay ent ert ai n i nt er l ocut ory r evi ew of di s tr i ctcourtdeci s i ons i n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , t hati s , w hen a col l at er al orde ri s t ant amount t o a “f i nal deci s i on. ” Johnson v. Jones , 515 U . S. 304, 310, 115 S. C t . 2151, 132 L . E d. 2d 238 ( 1995) ( ci t i ng Cohen v. B enef i cial I ndus. L oan Cor

p. , 337 U . S. 541, 69 S. C t . 1221, 93

### 5

L . E d. 1528 ( 1949) ; 28 U . S. C . § 1291) ( 2006) . I n deter m i ni ng w hethera col l at er al or der amount s t o a f

i nal deci s i on w hi ch qual i f i es f ori m m edi at e appe al , the or derm us t“[ 1] c o n c lu siv e ly d e ter m in e th e d isp u ted q u e s tio n , [2 ] res o lv e a n im p o rta n t issu e c o m p lete ly s epar at e f

r om t he mer i t s of

the ac t i on, and [ 3] be ef f ect i vely un revi ew abl e on appe al f r om a fi nal j udgm ent . ” Johnson , 515 U . S. at310 ( quot i ng Puer to Ri c o Aqueduc t a nd Sew er A uth. v. Metcal

f & E ddy, I

nc. , 506 U . S. 139, 144, 113 S. Ct . 684, 121 L . Ed. 2d 605 ( 1993) (b ra c k e ts in o ri g in a l) ). ¶10. T he Supr eme C our t has appl i ed thi s “col l at er al or der doctr i ne” t o ho l d t hatf eder al c o u rts o f a p p e a l h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew d e n ials o f im m u n ity w ith re sp e c t to p u b lic of f i ci al s , s ued i n t hei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es underf eder al l aw , as l ong as thatdet erm i nat i on tu rn s o n a m a tte r o f l a w . Mitch e ll v. Fo rs y th , 472 U . S. 511, 526- 30, 105 S. C t . 2806, 2815- 16, 86 L . E d. 2d 411 ( 1985) . I n Fo rs y th , 472 U . S. at525-27, t he Supre m e C our thel d that th e d en ial o f i m m u n ity to a p u b li c o ffi cial, w h ethe r qu ali fi ed o r ab so lute, w as “ effec tiv e ly unr evi ew abl e” aft er tri al because i m m uni ty cont empl at es pr ot ect i on nots i m pl y f r om l i abi l i ty, butal s o f r om st andi ng t r i al . T he C our tl i kened a deni al of i m m uni ty t o a deni al of a cr i m i nal defend ant’ s r i gh tno tt o st and tri al on do ub l e j eop ardy grou nd s: A m aj orchar act er i s t i c of t he deni al orgr ant i ng of a cl ai m appea l abl e under Cohen ’s “c o ll ateral o rde r” d o ctrin e is th at “u n less itca n b e re v iew ed b efo re [ the pr ocee di ngs t erm i nat e] , i tcan neve rbe r evi ew ed atal l . ” S ta c kv. B o y le , 3 4 2 U .S . 1 , 1 2 , 7 2 S . C t. 1 , 7 , 9 6 L . E d . 1 (1 9 5 2 ) (o p in io n o f Ja c k so n , J.); s ee als o U nited States v. Hol

l yw ood MotorCarCo. , 4 5 8 U .S . 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 3081, 3083, 73 L . E d. 2d 754 ( 1982) . W hen a di s tr i ctcourth as deni ed a def endant ’ s cl ai m of

r i ghtnott o s t and tr i al , on doubl e j eopar dy gr ounds , f or exampl e, w e have cons i s t ent l y hel d t he court ’ s deci s i on appea l abl e, f ors uch a ri g h t c a n n o t b e e ff

e c tiv e ly v in d ic a te d a ft e r th e tria l h a s o c c u rr e d . A bney v.

### 6

U nited States , 43 1 U . S . 65 1, 97 S . C t . 20 34 , 52 L . E d. 2d 65 1 (197 7). T hu s, th e d e n ial o f a su b sta n tial c laim o f a b so lu te im m u n ity is a n o rd e r a p p e a la b le b efo re final jud g m en t, for the esse n ce o f ab so lute im m u n ity is i ts po sses so r’s e n title m e n t n o t t o h a v e to a n s w e r fo r h is c o n d u c t i n a c iv il d a m a g e s a c tio n . See N ix o n v. Fitzg e ra ld , 4 5 7 U . S . 7 3 1 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 2 6 9 0 , 7 3 L . E d . 2d 3 4 9 (19 8 2 ); c f. Hel s tos kiv. Meanor , 4 4 2 U . S . 5 0 0 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 4 4 5 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 (19 7 9 ). I d. at525. H ow ever , notevery cl ai m t o gover nm ent al i m m uni ty qual i f i es as i m m uni ty f

r om su it. T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c a u tio n e d th a t “[S e c tio n ] 12 9 1 re q u ire s c o u rts of appea l s t o vi ew cl ai m s of a ‘ r i ghtnott o be tr i ed’ w i th s kept i ci s m , i f nota j aundi ced e ye, f orvi r tual l y every r i ghtthatcoul d be enf or ced appr opr i at el y by pr etr i al di s m i s s al m i ght l oos el y be des cr i bed as conf err i ng a ‘ r i ghtnott o s t and tr i al . ’ ” S w in t v. Ch a m b e rs C o u n ty Co m m ’n , 514 U . S. 35, 43, 115 S. C t . 1203, 131 L . E d. 2d 60 ( 1995) ( quot i ng D i gital E qui p. C orp. v. D es ktop D ir ect , I nc. , 511 U . S. 863, 873, 114 S. C t . 1992, 128 L . E d. 2d 842 (19 9 4 )). ¶11. T he C ount y’ s ar gum ent , that i m m uni ty un der t he M T C A s hi el ds the governm ent al ent i ty f r om havi ng t o def

end i t s el f

i n courtpr ocee di ngs , r el i es l ar gel y on the f ol l ow i ng l a n g u a g e f

r o m Mitch e ll v. City o

f G re e n v ille , 8 4 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 2 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ): T he M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e has det erm i ned thatgover nm ent al ent i t i es and thei re m pl oyees s hal l be e xempt f r om l i abi l i ty i n c ert ai n s i tuat i ons a s out l i ned i n [ M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on] 11- 46- 9. T hi s exem pt i on, l i ke t hatof qual i f i ed o r ab so lute im m u n ity , is a n e n ti tl em en t no t t o stan d tr ial rathe r th an a m ere d efe n se to l iabili ty an d , th ere fore , sho u ld be reso lved at the e arli est p o ss ib le s ta g e o f l itig a tio n . C

f. S a u c ierv. K

a tz, 533 U . S. 194, 200- 01, 121 S. C t . 2151, 15 0 L . E d. 2d 272 ( 20 01 ). T heref ore, i m m un i ty i s a quest i on of l aw and i s a p ro p e r m a tter f

o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n d e r [M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e] 56.T h i s Co u r ta l s o h a s r e c o g n i z e d , i n a c a s e th a ttu rn e d o n p r e - M T CA i mm u n i ty l a w, 1 that this “en ti tl em en t no t t o stan d tr ial ” m ay , in ad d it ion , p rotec t st ate g o v ern m en tal ac tors fr o m u n n e c e s s a ry d is c o v e ry . Mc Qu e e n v. Wil lia ms , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 4 -25 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). 

### 7 T h u s , Mitch e ll

es t abl i s hed thatthe ques t i on of s over ei gn im m uni ty underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw w a s a n a p p ro p ri a te m a tte r f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b e c a u se th e M T C A c o n tem p late s im m u n ity fr om bo th li abil i ty an d judi ci al proceed i ng s. H ow eve r, Mitch e ll , 846 So. 2d at1029, w as properl y b efor e t his C ou rtby w ay o f a di rectapp eal as a r esul tof the tr i al cou rt ’s gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f t h e g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity . Mitch e ll d id n o t h o ld th a t a governm ent al def

endanthas a r i ghtt o appea l di r ect l y a deni al of s um m ary j udgm ent; t he o p in io n sim p ly n o ted tha t th e b e tter p ra c tice is fo r tria l co u rts to re so lv e iss u e s o f im m u n ity “atthe ea r l i es tpos s i bl e s t age of l i t i gat i on. ” I

d. 1 ¶12 . T his C ou rt has nev er recogn i zed that go vernm ental i m m un i ty fr om sui t est abli shes a
r i ghtdi r ect l y t o appea l a pr etr i al rul i ng denyi ng i m m uni ty. I ns t ead, deni al s of i m m uni ty at th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e a re re v ie w e d v ia th e in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l p r o c e s s . S e e e .g ., G or ton v. R ance , 5 2 S o . 3 d 3 5 1 (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ); Mis s . D ep’t of Mental Heal th v. Shaw , 45 S o. 3 d 6 5 6 , 6 5 7 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ); Covington Count y Sch. D is t

. v. Magee , 2 9 S o . 3 d 1 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). ¶13. O ther than Mitch e ll , 8 4 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , th e o n ly M iss iss ip p i c a se c ited b y th e C o u n ty on this i ssue i s Meeks v. Mil ler , 9 5 6 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e C o u n ty d o e s n o t ex p lain h o w Meeks s uppor t s i t s pos i t i on; but , becaus e the ca s e w as bef or e the C our ton a pet i t i on f or cert i or ar i , the opi ni on i n thatcas e mi ghtl ead one t o bel i eve thatthi s C our tal l ow ed a di r ect a p p e a l f ro m a d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n s o v e re ig n im m u n ity . Meeks , 956 So.

### In its rep ly b rief, the C ountycites Ort iz v. Jordan , __ U. S. __, 131 S. Ct . 884, 884, 2 

### 893 (J an. 24, 2011), stating that “thefai lure to ra is e thedenia l of immuni ty at t he tim e the deni alis is sue d may in fa ct prec ludea de fe ndant

from be ing a

bleto a ss ert t

hat ri ght at a late r time .” Ortiz

has no appli cati on here , firs t, beca useit involved a

cl ai m unde r f

ede ra l l aw, and 8 2d at867. H ow ever , t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ opi ni on (f r om w hi ch thi s C our tgr ant ed a pe t i t i on f orcert i or ar i ) m akes i tcl earthatthe case w as “a n i nt er l ocut ory appea l . ” Meeks v. Mil ler , 9 5 6 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 3 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶14. A ccor di ng t o the appe l l at e r ecor d i n Meeks , the def endant f i l ed a di r ect appea l f

r om a den i al of sum m ary j ud gm ent, and the p l ai nti ff s f i l ed a m oti on to dis m i ss the ap peal because of i t s i nt er l ocut ory natur e. T he def endantr es ponded w i th m any of the s ame ar gum ent s m ade by the C ount y i n the i ns t antcas e. T hi s C our tthen ent er ed an or dertr eat i ng the not i ce of appea l as a pet i t i on f

ori nt er l ocut ory a ppeal , a nd gr ant i ng the r eques tf orr evi ew . R athert han
r e t a i n i n g th e c a s e f

o rr e v i e w, a s i s th e n o r ma l c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i n i n t e r l o c u t o ry a p p e a l s , we as s i gned the ca s e t o the C our tof A ppeal s . A l though the not i ce of appea l w as f

i l ed out s i de th e ti m e fo r se e k in g inte rlo c u to ry rev iew u n d e r R u le 5 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e, the def

endantdi d notrecei ve t i m el y not i ce of the tr i al court ’ s or derf r om t he H i nds C ount y C i rcui tC l erk’ s O f f i ce. M or eover , the def endantr eques t ed i n hi s not i ce of a p p e a l th a t, a s a n alte rn a tiv e , th is C o u rt tre a t th e n o tice as a p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. T hus , the appe l l at e pr ocee di ngs i n Meeks d o n o t su p p o rt th e C o u n ty ’s p o sitio n a n d sim p ly
r e a f f i r m o u rn o rma l p r a c t i c e o f i n t e r l o c u t o ry r e v i e w. ¶ 1 5 . T h e C o u n ty ’s r e m a in in g a rg u m e n ts a re b a s e d o n f e d e ra l la w , an d it im p licitly
r ecogni zes thatw e ar e i n no w ay bound by thos e dec i s i on s. I ndeed, the U ni t ed St at es 2

### se cond, bec aus e t he i mm unit y def ens e at i ss ue di d not m ee t t he fe deralst anda

rd f or c oll at eral re vie w. Thece ntralholding in Ortiz , 131 S. Ct . at 889, wa s that a party may not a ppea l an ord er denyin g summary ju dg ment after a fu ll trial onthe merits. 9 S u p rem e C o u rth as h eld that the re is n o fed era l ri g h t t o an interl o cu tory ap p ea l i n stat e c o u rt fro m a d e n ial o f q u a lified im m u n ity . J o h n so n v. Fa n k e ll , 520 U . S. 911, 117 S. C t . 1800, 1 3 8 L . E d . 2 d 1 0 8 (1 9 9 7 ). See al s o I n r e W or ld T r ade CenterD is as terSite Li ti gati on , 521 F . 3d 16 9, 18 1 (2d C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “[ F ] ederal l aw decides the categori es of appealabl e orders; s t at e l aw det erm i nes i f

a s t at e l aw cl ai m , ordef ens e, f al l s w i thi n one of

the ca t egor i es . ”) ¶16. H i nds C ount y ar gues that thi s C our t s houl d adopt the “col l at er al or der doctr i ne”; but as di s cus s ed above , thatdoctr i ne w as es t abl i s hed i n r es pons e t o the f eder al s t atut e w hi ch l i m i t s court s of

appea l s ’ j ur i s di ct i on t o “ f i nal de ci s i ons ” of

di s tr i ctc our t s . 28 U . S. C . § 1291 (2 0 0 6 ). T h is C o u rt d e riv e s it s ju risd ictio n fro m th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n a n d sta te s t atut es . M i s s . C ons t . art . 6, § 146 ( “The Supre m e C our ts hal l have s uch j ur i s di ct i on as pr oper l y bel ongs t o a courtof appea l s and s hal l exer ci s e no j ur i s di ct i on on m att er s othert han thos e s peci f

i cal l y pr ovi ded by thi s C on st i tut i on orby gener al l aw . ”) M or eover , w e have re c o g n ize d th a t th e fe d e ra l “ c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e ” e x ists in th e d o u b le je o p a rd y c o n tex t, b u t h a v e n o t in te rp re te d th e d o c tr in e to a ll o w a s ta te ri g h t to im m e d ia te a p p e a l. B e c k w ith v. S ta te , 615 So. 2d 1134, 1138 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng A bney , 431 U . S. at657). Ins t ead, re v iew o f d e n ials o f m o tio n s to d ism iss c rim in a l ch a rg e s b a se d o n d o u b le je o p a rd y is p e rm is s ib le , n o t m a n d a to ry . I d.

### 10

¶17. In M i ssi ssi pp i , t he o nly t i m e an ap peal of r i ghti s a l l ow ed f

rom an other w i se i nt er l ocut ory or deri s i n t he case of an appe al f

r om an or derei therdenyi ng orgr ant i ng a rb itr a tio n . Saw

yers v. Her r in- G earChevr olet Com pany, I nc. , 26 S o. 3d 10 26 , 10 34 (M i ss. 2010) . O f

cour s e, “[ w ] hen a c om m er ci al tr ans act i on i nvol vi ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce i ncl udes an agr eementt o arbi tr at e di s put es , f eder al l aw contr ol s t he enforcementof the arbi tr at i on agr eement , ” M

S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 9 26 S o. 2d 167, 173 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng G uines s H

ar p Cor p. v. Jos . Schlit

zB r ew ing Co. , 613 F. 2d 468 ( 2d C i r . 1980) ) , w hi ch in c lu d e s th e ri g h t to a p p e a l. S aw yers , 26 So. 3d at1034. A s al ready dis cus s ed, i n t he p re s e n t c a s e , s ta te la w g o v e rn s th e ri g h t to a p p e a l. ¶18. M or eover , unl i ke den i al s of sov erei gn im m un i t y, a deni al of arbi tr at i on does not re q u ire u s firs t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e iss u e tu rn s o n a q u e stio n o f la w b e fo re th e rig h t to appea l ar i s es . O f

t en, a governm ent al e nt i ty’ s i m m uni ty w i l l turn on f actual det erm i nat i ons thatm ay notbe a dj udi cat ed f ul l y unt i l a be nch tr i al ha s oc curr ed. The tr i al j udge, as the tr i er of f act , i ni t i al l y m ay deny a n i m m uni ty cl ai m , butr econs i derhi s or herrul i ng af t era f ul l t r i al on the mer i t s . I n thos e i ns t ance s , an appe al as of r i ghtf r om t he i ni t i al deni al w oul d nots erve the i nt er es t s of

j udi ci al economy. H i nds C ounty does nott el l thi s C our thow a “c ol l at er al or derdoctr i ne” w oul d be any mor e ef f i ci entthan ourpr es entpra ct i ce unde rR ul e 5 of t he M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , w h ich e n tit les p a rties to s e e k p e rm iss iv e a p p e a ls to re so lv e q u e stio n s o f la w . T h u s, w e d e c lin e to a d o p t a r u le th a t w o u ld a llo w d ire c t ap p e a ls as of r i ghtf r om pr etr i al deni al s of

s over ei gn i m m uni ty.

### 11 C oncl usi on ¶1 9 . W e find n o co m p ell ing rea so n to ab an d o n o u r cu rren t prac ti ce reg ard ing interl o cu tory re v ie w o f p re tr ia l d e n ia ls o f s o v e re ig n im m u n ity . See M . R . A . P . 5. T heref ore, w e dis m i ss thi s appea l . B eca us e the pl ai nt i f f has notci t ed any a uthor i ty t o s uppor thi s r eques tf or a tto rn e y f

e e s, th e iss u e is n o t p ro p e rly p re se n ted to th e C o u rt, an d th e re fo re , the re q u e st is d e n ie d . U

n itedA m e r. I

n s . C o . v. Me rr ill , 97 8 So . 2d 61 3, 63 1 ( M i s s . 20 07 ) ; M . R. A . P. 2 8 (a)(6). ¶ 2 0 . AP P EA L D I S M I S S ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D D I CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.