Cited by

But we are not faced here with a timely filed or premature notice of appeal that is allegedly deficient or defective, in which case, “fairness demands that ‘no mere technical error should prevent the appellate court from reaching the merits of the appeal.’” (absent prejudice to appellee, “technical defects or omissions in a notice of appeal are usually not jurisdictional”); McKillip v. Smitty’s S

Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co. , , (“[Rule 54(b)] is designed as a compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice.”); see also Hill v. City of Phoenix , , (“The application of federal Rule 54(b) is helpful in our interpretation of the Arizona rule.

¶ 15 , (“holding that in the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification, all judgments become effective upon entry of the one last in time which disposes of the last claim”).

-73, ¶¶ 8-10 , -03 (1999); Performance Funding, -89, ¶¶ 8, 12 , -09 (App.2000)

¶ 10 , (“[W]here adequate notice has been given an opposing party, fairness demands that ‘no mere technical error should prevent the appellate court from reaching the merits of the appeal.’ ” (citation omitted))

¶ 8 , (cautioning against construing the concept of “jurisdiction” too narrowly).

Cf. Hill v. City of Phoenix, — Ariz. -, at ¶10, at ¶ 10 (1999) (“[A]n overriding purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to dispose of cases on the merits where errors in procedure can be characterized as harmless and non-prejudicial.”).