Remand-for-Calculation Orders in Judicial Review Are Final Judgments; Later Enforcement/Clarification Remands Are Not Appealable Until the Refund Amount Is Finally Determined

1. Introduction

In MARQUE MOTOR COACH, INC. v. NEV. TAX COMM'N (CIVIL) (Nev. Feb. 6, 2026), the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction arising from a tax-refund dispute that proceeded as a petition for judicial review of an agency decision by the Nevada Tax Commission (NTC), with the Nevada Department of Taxation (DOT) involved in refund calculations.

The district court initially entered an August 14, 2024 order agreeing that a state tax paid by Marque was unconstitutional to the extent it taxed interstate travel, and it remanded to the NTC to determine the refund amount. After the NTC/DOT calculated a refund and disputes arose about the correct calculation and process, the district court entered an April 10, 2025 order addressing motions to clarify and to enforce, and again remanded to the NTC for a hearing and for a more detailed explanation of the refund calculation.

The central jurisdictional issues were whether the April 10 order was (1) an appealable “final judgment” (especially where the August 14 order already appeared final), and (2) sufficiently final on the refund amount to be ripe for appellate review.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

  • The August 14, 2024 order functioned as the case’s final judgment because it fully resolved the discrete legal issue presented in the petition for judicial review (the tax’s constitutionality) and remanded only for calculation.
  • The later April 10, 2025 order could not be a “second” final judgment and, in any event, did not finally resolve key components necessary to determine the refund amount (including the interstate-travel percentage and interest), making the appeal premature.
  • Marque did not carry its burden to establish appellate jurisdiction, so dismissal was required.

The court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss as moot because the court itself dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not reach other potential defects. (The order also contains an apparent date typo referring to “April 10, 2024” near the end, though the record consistently identifies the appealed order as April 10, 2025.)

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The court’s jurisdictional analysis relied on a line of Nevada cases distinguishing (1) final judgments from nonfinal orders and (2) appealable interlocutory/post-judgment orders from those that remain nonfinal as to the issue they address.

1) Final-judgment framework: “one final judgment” and what qualifies

  • Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000)
    Cited for the definition and identification of a “final judgment.” The court used Lee to support the proposition that the August 14 order, which resolved the discrete legal issue presented to the district court, bore the hallmarks of finality even though the matter was remanded for computation.
  • Alper v. Posin, 77 Nev. 328, 363 P.2d 502 (1961), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. GNLV Corp.. 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000)
    Used for the principle that there can be only one final judgment; accordingly, if the August 14 order was final, the April 10 order could not also be final. The court treats the April 10 order as a post-judgment, enforcement/clarification-type order following a final disposition on the legal merits.
  • Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 112 Nev. 1487, 929 P.2d 936 (1996)
    The most directly analogous authority: a district court order granting a petition for judicial review and remanding for calculation was deemed a final judgment because it resolved the discrete legal issue before the court (entitlement), leaving only computation on remand. The court applied Bally’s to conclude that August 14 (constitutionality decided; remand for refund calculation) was final in the same way.

2) Finality as to the specific issue appealed: interlocutory/post-judgment orders must finally resolve that issue

  • Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 266 P.3d 618 (2011)
    Cited for the rule that even appeals from orders that can be appealable in principle are proper only when the order finally resolves the particular issue. The court uses Sicor to frame the “issue-finality” requirement: if the order leaves essential components unresolved, appellate review is premature.
  • McGlamery v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. of Nev., No. 90609, (Nev. March 26, 2020) (Order Dismissing Appeal)
    An unpublished order used by analogy: an attorney-fee award “in an amount to be determined” is not appealable because it lacks finality as to the fee issue. Here, the refund amount was likewise not finally determined because key inputs (interstate percentage; interest) remained open on remand.

3) Remand orders and continuing merits proceedings: not final when remand revisits substantive merits

  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 129 Nev. 679, 310 P.3d 581 (2013)
    Cited to reject “finality” where remand proceedings would again address merits. The court analogized: because the NTC hearing on remand would determine key merits-like components of the refund calculation, the April 10 order did not conclude the matter with finality.
  • State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspan, 109 Nev. 1022, 862 P.2d 423 (1993)
    Used similarly: a remand for the agency to consider evidence it previously did not consider is not final where it does not resolve the merits of the underlying application/decision. The April 10 order required a new NTC hearing and a recalculation explanation—i.e., substantive work remained.

4) Burden to establish appellate jurisdiction

  • Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 25 P.3d 898 (2001)
    The court invoked Moran to emphasize that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating appellate jurisdiction. Because Marque could not show that the April 10 order was appealable or final as to the refund amount, dismissal followed.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps: (1) identify the operative final judgment, and (2) test whether the appealed order is final as to the issue it addresses.

  1. The August 14 order was final because it fully resolved the only legal issue presented in the petition for judicial review.
    Marque argued August 14 could not be final because the district court did not determine refund amount or timeframe. The court rejected that framing, observing that Marque’s petition did not ask the district court to compute the refund or determine the refund period; it sought judicial review of the legal validity/constitutionality of the tax. Once the district court resolved that discrete legal issue and remanded for computation, the judicial-review action reached finality under Lee and Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves.
  2. The April 10 order was not a second final judgment and was nonfinal as to the refund amount.
    Under Alper v. Posin, there is only one final judgment. In addition, the April 10 order did not end the refund dispute with finality: it resolved the refund timeframe issue (limiting it to what the district court found had been requested), but remanded for an NTC hearing and further determinations on the interstate-travel percentage and explanation, leaving the refund amount and interest still unresolved. Under Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks and the analogy to McGlamery, that lack of “issue finality” makes an appeal premature.

C. Impact

This order reinforces (and clarifies in the tax/judicial-review setting) several jurisdictional guideposts likely to shape future appellate practice in Nevada:

  • Finality attaches to the judicial-review court’s resolution of the discrete legal issue even if the agency must calculate amounts on remand. Parties should treat such an order as the appeal-triggering final judgment.
  • Post-judgment “enforcement/clarification” remand orders are not automatically appealable; appellate review generally must await a truly final resolution of the remanded calculation issues (e.g., a final agency determination and any properly appealable district court disposition).
  • Appeals cannot be used to litigate “in-progress” remand disputes where key components remain open (e.g., the factual basis and methodology for a percentage allocation, or whether statutory interest is owed). This encourages full development of the record at the agency level before appellate intervention.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Final judgment: The district court’s order that ends the case in that court by resolving the issue(s) it was asked to decide. A remand for “math” or implementation can still be final if the legal entitlement question is fully decided.
  • “There can be only one final judgment”: Once a final judgment is entered, later orders are generally post-judgment orders; they do not restart finality.
  • Remand: The court sends the matter back to the agency to do further work consistent with the court’s ruling (e.g., hold a hearing, take evidence, calculate amounts).
  • Ripeness / issue finality: Even when an order addresses an issue, it is not ripe for appeal if it leaves key parts of that issue unresolved—so the appellate court would be reviewing a moving target.
  • Jurisdictional burden: The appellant must show the Nevada Supreme Court has authority to hear the appeal; if not, dismissal is mandatory regardless of the merits.

5. Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court’s dismissal establishes a practical rule for judicial-review litigation: when the district court resolves the discrete legal issue presented (here, the constitutionality of a tax) and remands only for computation, that order is the case’s final judgment. Subsequent orders addressing enforcement/clarification that remand for further evidentiary proceedings and recalculation explanations are not appealable until they finally resolve the amount-related issues. The decision tightens appellate timing, channels disputes back into completion of the remand process, and underscores that jurisdiction depends on true finality—not the parties’ perception that the remand is “going wrong.”