Cited by

Co., ¶ 15 2 CRANDELL v. AZADI Decision of the Court (2009) (a dismissal without prejudice entered after expiration of the statute of limitations is a final, appealable order).

Co., ¶ 15 (App. 2009) (quoting McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., ¶ 4 (App. 2009)).

Co., Inc., –84, ¶ 12 (2009) (noting limits on appellate jurisdiction), superseded by statute on other grounds; see also A.R.S.

Co., (dismissal without prejudice appealable if statute of limitations has run because action has been, in effect, determined); Andrews ex rel.

Co., Inc., ¶ 15 (2009) (noting the “exception to the final judgment rule codified at A.R.S.

Co., Inc., (“Garza II”).

Co., ¶ 15 (2009); McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., ¶ 4 (App. 2009).1 Similarly, courts have held that the provision provides appellate jurisdiction over dismissals without prejudice based on a forum-selection clause.

Co., ¶ 13 (2009), when the judgment 6 DABROWSKI v. BARTLETT Opinion of the Court “dispose[s] of at least one separate claim of a multi-claim action,” Davis, 168 Ariz. at 304.

Co., ¶ 15 (2009) (absent a showing of prejudice, an order is appealable when it in effect determines the action); ¶ 9 (App. 2018) (recognizing exceptions to the general rule); Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., ¶ 32 (App. 2016) (citing cases).

Co., Inc., ¶¶ 15-16 (2009).

Co., ¶ 15 (2009) (noting that “[t]he classic example of an order falling under A.R.S.

Co., Inc., ¶ 12 (2009) (appellate court derives jurisdiction to review the superior court’s orders from statutory provisions, which limit the power of review to final judgments with certain exceptions).

Co., ¶ 15 (2009) (holding a dismissal without prejudice entered after the statute of limitations has run is a final, appealable order when it “in effect determines the action”) (citations omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., ¶ 22 (Ap

Co., ¶¶ 15-16 , (section 12-2101(A)(3) provides *348 jurisdiction when non-final order precludes party from obtaining ultimate judgment).

Co., ¶ 15 (2009) (holding a dismissal without prejudice entered after the statute of limitations has run is a final, appealable order), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., ¶ 22 (App. 2016); see also Romero v. Hasan, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, 338 P.

Co., –84, ¶ 12, -11 (2009) (quoting Eaton v. Unified Sch.

Co., Inc., , 283 ¶ 12, (stating this court “derives ...

Co., Inc., ¶ 12 (2009) (stating this court “derives .