conduct violated clearly established law.”). The denial of qualified immunity is “purely legal where it concerns only the application of established legal principles to a given set of facts,” which enables appellate jurisdiction, and “not ‘legal’ where it resolves a fact-related dispute of ‘evidence sufficiency.’” Steadman v. Texas Rangers, 179 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 314, 115 S.Ct. at 2156-57), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 933, 144 L.Ed.2d 812 (2000). The Supreme Court has clarified “that determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualified-immunity case.” Behrens, 516 U.S. at 313, 116 S.Ct. at 842; see Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 595, 118 S.Ct. at 1595 (<HOLDING>). In a factual situation analogous to Johnson,
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 recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity recognizing that the court declined to craft an exception to settled rules of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and rejected the argument that the policies behind the qualified immunity defense justify interlocutory appeals on questions of evidentiary sufficiency