Cited by

§ 12-2101(A)(1), but not pending issues

Yee, 251 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 14, n. 5.

After a final judgment, a court may consider appeals mistakenly filed prematurely if no appellee is prejudiced and “if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 (2006)

(“The underlying rationale of requiring a final judgment for appealability is to avoid the constant disruption of the trial process .

§ 12- 2101(A)(1), (5)(b); -22 (1981).

§ 12- 2101(A)(1), (5)(b); -22 (1981) (permitting jurisdiction over “premature appeal from a minute entry order in which no appellee was prejudiced and in which a subsequent final judgment was entered”).

¶17 The Guinn ruling was premised on the narrow exception to the “final judgment rule” P.2d 1200 (1981), which treats a premature notice of appeal as timely if it is filed when there are no further substantive decisions to be made by the fact- finder, even though a final order has not been issued.

See Kunkle Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa Cty., (explaining that the “legislature intended to protect the jurisdiction of the Commission when properly invoked by permitting judicial review only after the Commission has had an opportunity to rule”); (noting the “underlying rationale of requiring a final judgment .

Moreover, we held that a determination of the amount of an award of attorneys’ fees is discretionary and not ministerial, did 3 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.

See ARCAP 9.1 (2014); ¶ 13 (2011)

at 481, ¶ 19, 296 P.3d at 1017 (-22, -04 (1981) and stating “if the ruling preceding the notice of appeal is a final decision .

(referencing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) and State Bar Committee Notes to the 1961 Amendment to the Rule).

(premature appeal from minute entry where appellee is not prejudiced and a subsequent final judgment is entered need not be dismissed).

A limited exception to the final judgment rule exists for premature appeals filed “after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment” only if “no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 (2006) ().

(holding a premature appeal taken from an unsigned minute entry order ruling on post-trial motion need not be dismissed where “no appellee was prejudiced and .

Nonetheless, , in which our supreme court held that “a premature appeal from a minute entry order in which no appellee was prejudiced and in which a subsequent final judgment was entered over which jurisdiction may be exercised need not be dismissed.” -8

Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n., ¶ 37 , ( , ).

(referencing Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) and respective State Bar Committee Notes in the 1961 Amendment to the Rule).

P.2d 1200 (1981), our supreme court announced a limited exception to the final judgment rule that allowed premature notices of appeal to be considered “‘after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment, if no decision of the court could change and the only remaini