Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Inc., 213 W.Va. 667, 584 S.E.2d 523 (2003) (per curiam). Syl. Pt. 3, Shafer v. Kings Tire Service, Inc., 215 W.Va. 169, 597 S.E.2d 302 (2004). Cognizant of these standards, we turn to the substantive issues presented. III. DISCUSSION A Fair Value Determination Out the outset, we may quickly dispose of appellees’ argument that the instant appeal of the circuit court’s fair value determination of the PRF stock is untimely. Ap-pellees argue that the circuit court’s April 6, 2006, order setting the value of the shares of PRF stock “approximates a final order in its nature and effect” and, thus, was required to be appealed with four months of its entry pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rides of Appellant Procedure. See, Syl. Pt. 2, Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562, 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991) (<HOLDING>). However, simply because an order may be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment (B) holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants (C) holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal (D) holding that the absence of language in an order indicating that there is not just reason for delay pursuant to rule 54b of the west virginia rules of civil procedure does not bar appeal of the order so long as this court can determine that the circuit courts ruling approximates a final order in its nature and effect (E) holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final
Output (English): holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment