a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ As a result, 'we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.’ ” (citations omitted)). 5 . As discussed below, whether Plaintiffs' asserted interest in the remains of their relative amounts to a "property interest" for constitutional due process is determined by reference to state law. See infra subpart A.2. 6 . We agree with the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit and believe that reasoning is applicable here.” Newman, 287 F.3d at 796. 7 . The California Supreme Court granted review, and, under California appellate rules, the opinion was superseded. Following the disposition in Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 45 Cal.4th 1244, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d 1127 (2009) (<HOLDING>), the appeal was dismissed. 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 684,
holding university owed no duty to family members of a decedent who donated his remains to dispose of the remains in a particular manner holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi holding that a company that entered into liquidation remains in business for purposes of the act