orders, they are appealable under the collateral order doctrine because they address Eleventh Amendment immunity. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147, 113 S.Ct. 684, 689, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). 5 . The Southern District found Georgia had raised a colorable claim to ownership of the logs and had not waived its immunity. Aqua Log did not cross appeal and has not otherwise contested the district court’s conclusions. The Middle District found it un necessary to reach these issues after finding Georgia lacked possession of the res. 6 . Although earlier cases indicated a government in possession of the res was entitled to immunity from an in rem admiralty action, see The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 11 U.S. 116, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (<HOLDING>), The Davis appears to be the first Supreme
holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter holding the claimant does not consent to personal jurisdiction by appearing in in rem action holding france was entitled to immunity regarding an in rem action against a french ship of war in the possession of french officers holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity