underlying its decision, “a court of appeals may have to undertake a ... review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed”). Officer Wilkins contends that this court has jurisdiction to hear his appeal because the Peterses’ version of events does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Key to Officer Wilkins’ position is the fact that neither Michael nor Debi Peters saw what transpired after McCaslin left the road. According to Officer Wilkins, the Peterses’ testimony reflects “sheer speculation and is directly in opposition to all of the physical evidence, including photographs.” (Appellants’ Br. at 6.) We lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (<HOLDING>). Although we lack jurisdiction to consider the
holding order setting aside summary judgment for procedural irregularity was not immediately appealable holding that a summary judgment order determining only a question of evidence sufficiency ie which facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial is not immediately appealable holding that a portion of a district courts summary judgment order that determines which facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial is not appealable holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable holding determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualifiedimmunity case