Cited by

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”).

Swanson v. 3M Co., ( n.9 (Minn. 2002)) (“When our jurisprudence is undeveloped in an area, as it is here, we often consider case law from other jurisdictions for guidance.”).

“Generally, interlocutory appeals are disfavored and, ordinarily, only ‘final judgments’ are appealable.”

(“Generally, interlocutory appeals are disfavored and, ordinarily, only ‘final judgments’ are appealable.”).

Gordon v. Microsoft Corp.

In deciding whether to grant discretionary review, this court considers a multi-factor test articulated in Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., 3 -402 (Minn. 2002).

-402 (Minn. 2002); Doe 175 ex rel.

MPS argues that there are sound policy reasons for a 2-year statute of limitations in employment cases, n.5 (Minn. App. 1995), 2 MPS suggests that the shorter period encourages prompt investigation of employees’ claims (including of an employer’s allegedly illegal conduct) and reduces the likelihood that evidence will become stale.

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

a defendant in a class action sought discretionary review of a district court order granting a motion for class certification.

Each of these avenues to interlocutory appellate review depends on the application of substantive criteria by the court of appeals, -402 (Minn.2002) (specifying factors for consideration of petitions for discretionary review), or by a district court initially, subject to the court of appeals' independent determination, -16 (Minn.App.2008) (considering whether certified questions are

Nevertheless, while we remand for further proceedings, and while we recognize that a class certification decision rests in the court's discretion, (stating that appellate review of a class certification decision "should take into consideration the district court’s discretion”), we have yet to uphold a class certification decision challenged on appeal in property value disputes.

P. 105.01 (allowing discretionary review in the interest of justice); (interpreting rule 105.01).

(holding that this court’s decision to grant discretionary review of class certification decisions should “take into consideration the district court’s discretion regarding class actions as well as the deferential appellate standard of review”); (Minn.App.20

2 -400 (Minn.2002) (examining federal law to determine standards for ap-pealability of class certification orders in Minnesota courts).

28, 1996), In O’Shaughnessy , homeowners sued the general contractor who built their house, claiming damages for faulty workmanship.