Opinion ID: 889579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the District Court's order for remand a final judgment under M.R.App. P. 6(1)?

Text: ¶ 17 Whitehall argues as a threshold issue that the District Court's order constitutes an interlocutory judgment that should not be appealable by the PSC. An interlocutory judgment determines a preliminary issue, but does not finally decide the case. M.R.App. P. 4(1)(b). Whitehall emphasizes the fact that the District Court's order did not set a rate or direct the PSC to set a particular rate. Whitehall contends that the PSC must amend its rate determination in compliance with the District Court's order before it may appeal. ¶ 18 A party may appeal only a district court's final judgment. M.R.App. P. 6(1). A final judgment conclusively determines the rights of the parties and settles all claims in controversy. M.R.App. P. 4(1)(a). Section 2-4-702, MCA, provides for judicial review of an agency decision in a contested case. The District Court reviewed Whitehall's case and decided in Whitehall's favor based on the standards set out at § 2-4-704, MCA. The District Court's review of the whole record led it to conclude that the PSC's rate was unreasonable. To force the PSC to recalculate the rate in accordance with the District Court's specific instructions before allowing it to appeal would undermine the PSC's right to appeal under § 2-4-711, MCA. The District Court's order constitutes a final order from which the PSC has a right of appeal. M.R.App. P. 4(1)(a).