denying immunity is therefore “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Id. at 526-27, 105 S.Ct. 2806. But this exception to § 1291’s jurisdictional final order requirement depends on a summary judgment decision that actually denies an absolute or qualified immunity defense. See, e.g., Bines v. Kulaylat, 215 F.3d 381, 385-86 (3d Cir.2000) (dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction defendant’s interlocutory appeal from denial of summary judgment; refusing to entertain qualified immunity argument raised for first time on appeal). An interlocutory appeal may also of course be taken from a decision that fails or refuses to decide a claim of immunity that has been squarely presented to the district court. See Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 334-36 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, the defendants did not move
holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding district courts order postponing ruling on defendants qualified immunity defense was immediately appealable holding that a district courts order is final and immediately reviewable under mitchell if the appellants properly raised a claim of qualified immunity in the district court