Mitchell Paul Bilke; Charles Robert; Kenneth Ashelman; Felton Hale; Richard S. Berry; Mervin L. Davis and Damon D…

Summary

The court held that an interlocutory judgment is appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(G) when the trial court expressly determines that the parties' rights are finally resolved and that only the amount of recovery remains. It further held that the remaining proceeding need not be equitable and disapproved the contrary limitation adopted by the court of appeals. The court approved the court of appeals' conclusion that it had jurisdiction, while denying review of the plaintiffs' original petition on other grounds.