PART V — JURISDICTION AND COMMENCEMENT
Rule 50. Interlocutory review, amendment, and misconception of remedy
Interlocutory appeal
An interlocutory order is reviewable only if:
a statute makes it directly appealable;
Rule 43(d) authorizes a State criminal appeal;
Rule 44(b) authorizes appeal of an order granting a new trial;
the Court lawfully grants discretionary review before judgment; or
Collateral order
A party invoking a collateral-order doctrine must show that the order conclusively decides an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The doctrine must be applied narrowly and cannot override a statute.
Misconception of remedy
If a civil appeal was taken where certiorari was the proper remedy, the Court must treat the notice of appeal and record as a duly presented petition for certiorari rather than dismiss solely for misconception of remedy, as required by 7 R. Stat. § 132.405. The Court may order the filer to supply the information required by Rule 48.
Other miscaptioned filings
The Court must treat a filing according to substance when lawful. It may convert or transfer a matter only if jurisdiction, timeliness, notice, and substantive rights are preserved. Portal metadata remains unchanged unless an available administrative correction is made.
Amendment
The Court may permit amendment of a civil appellate proceeding in furtherance of justice on just terms. Amendment may correct a party name, question, record designation, or remedy but may not create untimely jurisdiction or prejudice a party without an opportunity to respond.
No piecemeal review by artifice
Voluntary dismissal of remaining claims, an artificial caption, or a portal case type may not manufacture finality if governing law would permit the lower proceeding to continue.