view of the facts to the plaintiff for purposes of the appeal.”). Subsequent cases, however, have rejected that approach and clarified that we may consider a pure question of law, despite the defendants’ failure to concede the plaintiffs version of the facts for purposes of the interlocutory appeal: “If ... aside from the impermissible arguments regarding disputes of fact, the defendant also raises the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law, then there is an issue over which this court has jurisdiction.” Estate of Carter, 408 F.3d at 310 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 772 (6th Cir.2005); but see McKenna v. City of Royal Oak, et al., 469 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that this court has
holding that appellant could challenge interlocutory partial summary judgment even though notice of appeal stated that appeal was from order sustaining subsequent plea to the jurisdiction holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia holding this court lacks jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeal where appellant relies solely on disputed facts