Cited by

¶ 15 (App. 2019); see Ariz. R.P.

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” ¶ 17 (App. 2019).

Rather, a claim is separable from the other undetermined claims when “no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there are subsequent appeals.” ¶ 14 (App. 2019) (quoting id.).

¶ 13 (App. 2019) (citing cases).

To the extent the court’s decision was based on an “interpretation and application of the law, we review its decision de novo.”

–14, ¶ 24 (App. 2019) (); cf. Koestel v. Buena Vista Pub.

¶6 “We have an independent obligation to determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss those matters over which we lack jurisdiction.” ¶ 19 (App. 2022) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2019)).

–18 ¶ 45 (App. 2019) (holding that counterclaimant was entitled to a private condemnation after evidence demonstrated that building a road across the alternate route would cause a disturbance and leave about 90 square feet on the lot for the counterclaimant’s home).

We have an independent obligation to determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction, and it is a question of law that we review de novo

¶ 13 (App. 2019) (An appellate court has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction.).

3 FLYNN v. OLSEN Decision of the Court over which we lack jurisdiction.” ¶ 13 (App. 2019).