Cited by

(the appellate court has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction).

¶ 8 (App. 2021) (“[W]hen a judgment merely disposes of one or more legal theories supporting a claim, ‘Rule 54(b) language does not make the judgment final and appealable.’” ()).

¶14 Generally, our appellate jurisdiction “is limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties.” (noting the general rule against piecemeal appeals); see also A.R.S.

Smith, 212 Ariz. at 415, ¶ 39 (“Beyond [the Barassi] exception, Arizona courts have consistently and with good reason held that premature notices of appeal are ineffective because they disrupt court processes.”); (“Public policy is 3 BALL v. SCOTTSDALE, et al. Decision of the Court against deciding cases piecemeal.”).

4 FLYNN v. OLSEN Decision of the Court (1981) (“Where, as here, the judgment disposed of three of the legal theories supporting appellants’ claim for relief, Rule 54(b) language does not make the judgment final and a

Absent statutory authority, we “do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the question raised on appeal.”

(quoting Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2657 (1973)).

¶19 Because “[p]ublic policy is against deciding cases piecemeal,” appeals are generally “limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties.” see A.R.S.

Because “[p]ublic policy is against deciding cases piecemeal,” our jurisdiction over appeals generally is “limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties.” see also A.R.S.

(stating “the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction,” which “is limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims against all parties”) (citation omitted).

Section 12-2101 “provides when an appeal may be taken.”

See, ¶ 6 (2014); ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

See, , 341 ¶ 6, , In re Marriage of Johnson & Gravino, , 230 ¶ 5