Cited by

In the absence of such authority, we “do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the *109 question raised on appeal.” , (citing Cnty.

Appellate Jurisdiction ¶8 Because MCA was neither named as a party to Enterprise’s disgorgement request nor ever served with process, we first examine our own jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.4 3In a section titled “Payment of Receiver,” the order of appointment stated the “Receiver’s fees and administrative expenses paid shall be submitted to the Court for final approval and confirmation.” 4Although MCA filed an “Emergency Motion to Intervene” after the trial c

4Generally, our jurisdiction “is limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties.”

P. certification, which allowed the court to direct entry of final judgment as to fewer than all claims, appellants could not appeal the ruling until all easement theories had been resolved because they “support[ed] ‘only a single claim for relief.’” Robinson, 225 Ariz. 191, ¶ 6, 236 P.3d at 420

Pursuant to § 12- 2101(A)(1), we have jurisdiction for an appeal “[f]rom a final judgment,” which is one that “‘dispose[s] of all claims and all parties.’”

As a general rule, only final judgments are appealable, , and a notice of appeal should be filed within the time allowed after a final judgment.

that “‘dispose[s] of all claims and all parties,’”

2101(A)(1), A.R.S., gives this court jurisdiction of appeals “[f]rom a final judgment.” See also § 12-2101(B) (order or judgment of the kind identified in subsection (A) of statute “is appealable”); Mansoori, 153 P.3d at 1088 (“Generally, appellate court jurisdiction is „limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties.‟”)

―If there is no statute which provides that a judgment or order is appealable, the appellate courts of this state do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the question raised on appeal.‖

If no statute “ ‘provides that a judgment or order is appealable, the appellate courts of this *62 state do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the question raised on appeal.”’

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.

(noting duty to determine existence of appellate jurisdiction).

-19 , (“The right [to appeal] is both defined and limited by A.R.S.

(“This court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.”); , (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction.”).

“We are not bound by [the parties’ assertion,] however, because of this court’s independent duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction.” Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., n.2, n.2 (App. 1998)

In fact, “[t]his court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” see also 5 (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction.”).

In fact, “[t]his court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” , , (“Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the appellate court must determine that it has jurisdiction.”).

Section 12-2101 and its federal counterpart protect the public policy “against deciding cases piecemeal.” Musa v. Adrian , , see Barry , 168 F.3d at 13 (“[E]xercising jurisdiction here ‘would undermine the policies of judicial efficiency, avoiding piecemeal litigation, and district court independence that are the basis of the final judgment rule.’” ), quoting Constr.