Cited by

(“The phrase ‘no just reason for delay’ in Rule 54(b) means that ‘there must be some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.’”) (quoting Campbell v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc., 403 F.2d 939, 942 (2d Cir. 1968)).

P. 54(b); see also Stevens, 90 Ariz. at 44–45 (noting that the rule requires “the determination and direction,” else the judgment is not final and not immediately appealable); ¶ 6 (App. 2009); (reiterating that “the lack of a 54(b) determination defeats finality”); ¶ 17 & n.3 (App. 2006) (suggesting, in dicta, that a statement of “no just reason for delay” and direction to enter judgment would qualify even without direct citation to Rule 54(b)).

“The phrase ‘no just reason for delay’ in Rule 54(b) means that ‘there must be some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by [an] immediate appeal.’” (quoting Campbell v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc., 403 F.2d 939, 942 (2d Cir. 1968)).

¶17 Similarly, “[t]he phrase ‘no just reason for delay’ in Rule 54(b) means that ‘there must be some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.’” (citation omitted).

¶ 19 (1999); (“The phrase ‘no just reason for delay’ in Rule 54(b) means that there must be some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.”) (quoting Campbell v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc., 403 F.2d 939, 942 (2d Cir. 1968)).

§ 12-2101(A)(6) pro *427 vides for appellate jurisdiction over non-final judgment); , 218 n.3, (“Certain kinds of decisions of the superior court are appealable without a 64(b) determination even though they are not final judg-ments_These are specific types of decisions listed in subsections of A.R.S.

§ 12-2101(A)(6) provides for appellate jurisdiction over non-final judgment); n.3 (App. 1980) (“Certain kinds of decisions of the superior court are appealable without a 54(b) determination even though they are not final judgments .

This “lack of a [Rule] 54(b) determination defeats finality.”

P. Rule 54(b) (“the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties”) 3 ; Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., , , (citing Stevens and explaining that when “there are outstanding claims remaining to be adjudi *415 cated in an action in the superior court, the lack of a 54(b) determination defeats finality”).

See also Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc., -45 , -10 (1961) (stating that when there is at least one outstanding claim and the superior court has not included Rule 54(b) language, the judgment is subject to modification and not final); , (citing Stevens and noting that the absence of Rule 54(b) language “defeats finality” whenever there are outstanding claims remaining); Rule 78(B) supra ¶ 10.

“Our supreme court and this court have traditionally guarded jurisdiction closely.”

(Rule 54(b) power should be used only “in the infrequent harsh case”); , (Rule 54(b) authority to be used “sparingly” in cases with interrelated claims and counterclaims); Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Gran

Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Co., 5 Ariz.App.

It is designed to eliminate a round trip to the trial court and back to the appellate court in the situation where all that is involved is the form of an otherwise appealable order.”

(reflecting “increasing concern over an apparently indiscriminate use of 54(b) determinations”); , (urging *192 the trial bench “to use sparingly .