in which both the appellant and the appel-lee have broad latitude with regard to the issues that may be raised, the questions this Court may address when considering an interlocutory appeal are limited to “those matters clearly embraced within” the issues certified in the orders of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court. Tenn. Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Hughes, 531 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tenn.1975); see also Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tenn. 1102, 301 S.W.3d 214, 227 n. 16 (Tenn.2010) (declining to address an issue, because it was “beyond the scope of the issue certified on the interlocutory appeal”); In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 286 S.W.3d 898, 902 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008) (citing Heatherly v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 43 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000)) (<HOLDING>). Although the Chancellor, Red Bank, and the
holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding that a statute providing for interlocutory appeals to be heard in the court where appellate jurisdiction may be vested by law means that this court has appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in cases where the sentence of life imprisonment or death may be imposed holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand