Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): question as it relates to court-awarded attorney fees. Thus, State Personnel Board is not controlling here. A division of this court has held that an award granting attorney fees, but not determining the amount, is not a final judgment. Axtell v. Park School District R-3, 962 P.2d 319 (Colo.App.1998). This holding is consistent with well-settled law that a judgment assessing liability without determining damages is not a final order. Har ding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo.1982); Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 119 Colo. 121, 201 P.2d 380 (1948); Ball Corp. v. Loran, 42 Colo.App. 501, 596 P.2d 412 (1979). Axtell is also supported by considerations of judicial economy, because its holding prevents piecemeal appeals See Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P2d 1244 (Colo.1996)(<HOLDING>). Both parties urge us to consider the order 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal (B) holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders (C) holding that orders denying summary judgment are not appealable based in part on the avoidance of piecemeal appeals (D) holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 (E) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
Output (English): holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable