Cited by

aff’d, see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -81 (Minn. 1988) (applying de novo review to determine whether a question is important and doubtful).

Id.; see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (explaining that “the thrust of the rules governing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal”).

“[T]he thrust of the rules governing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

(quoting Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., ).

Interlocutory appeals are disfavored because they “may cause disruption, delay, and expense for litigants; they also burden appellate courts by requiring immediate consideration of issues which may become moot or irrelevant by the end of trial.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

“[N]ot every vexing question is important and doubtful.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

1 ANALYSIS A. The “thrust” of the rules of civil appellate procedure “is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

16, 2019) (stating that “ ‘not every vexing question is important and doubtful’ and questions of first impression 11 are not alone sufficient ‘to justify certification as doubtful.’ ” (quoting Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., –80 (Minn. 1988))).

Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (“[T]he thrust of the rules govern ing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.”).

“We independently review whether a question is important and doubtful.” Siewert v. N. States Power Co. , aff’d, see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. , -81 (Minn. 1988) 6 (applying de novo review to determine whether a question is important and doubtful).

LP , d at 126, 128 (noting that although judgment had been entered, "the order on which review is sought here does not finally adjudicate" the legal rights of the taxpayer or the county, and concluding that the order was not "reviewable under Minn. Stat. § 271.10 because it is not a final order that determines [the taxpayer's] appeal" to the tax court); see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. , , 178 (Minn. 1988) (noting that we have "consistently dismissed appeals from orders that did not finally deter

Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. , , 179 (Minn. 1988).

See Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (“[T]he thrust of the rules governing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.”).

Cf. Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. , (“[T]he thrust of the rules governing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.”).

Ordinarily, only “final judgments are appealable.” (-79 (Minn. 1988) (quotation marks omitted)).

(quoting Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988)).

(quoting Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., – 80 (Minn. 1988)).

If granting a motion for summary judgment 3 “results in an adjudication of fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, appeal must ordinarily await the entry of a judgment which adjudicates all remaining claims and the rights and liabilities of all remaining parties.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

I. Whether a unitary appeal is required Relator argues that an initial determination on one issue does not “establish a deadline for appeal from that decision where [DEED] has not yet rendered a final determination on the companion issue of whether the applicant for benefits was able to work and was actively seeking work.” Appellant cites to Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., which involved an appeal from the denial of partial summary judgment in a personal- injury case.

The basic “thrust” of the rules of civil appellate procedure “is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

The basic “thrust” of the rules of civil appellate procedure “is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

See Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -81 (Minn.1988) (applying de novo review to determine whether question is important and doubtful).

there [must be] substantial ground for a difference of opinion.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988).

That the question is one of first impression is not, however, of itself sufficient to justify certification as doubtful; the question should be one on which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988) (citation omitted).

of itself sufficient to justify certification as doubtful; the question should be one on which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.

Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988).