II. Jurisdiction Even though neither party raised the issue, before we can reach the merits of Earl's appeal, we must first decide whether it was improvidently granted. SeeRiver Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984) ("Even though neither party has questioned our jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, we will sua sponte dismiss an appeal that is neither authorized by our rules nor permitted by court order.").

"Only a judgment that is final may be appealed as a matter of right." River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984) (citation omitted); accord Iowa R. App. P. 6.103(1). "A ruling is not final when the trial court intends to act further on the case before signifying its final adjudication of the issues."

“Even though neither party has questioned our jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, we will sua sponte dismiss an appeal that is neither authorized by our rules nor permitted by court order.” River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984). Only a judgment that is final may be appealed as a matter of right. Iowa R.App. P. 6.103(1) (“All final orders and judgments of the district court involving the merits or materially affecting the final decision may be appealed to the supreme court.”). “A ruling is not final when the trial court intends to act further on the case before signifying its final adjudication of the issues.”

Only a small fraction of such applications are presently granted, and we predict that this opinion will not significantly change that practice. Thereafter, in River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477-78 (Iowa 1984), we denied a rule 1(c) application for permission to appeal and reemphasized how exceptional a case must be to qualify for interlocutory appeal under that rule, quoting warnings to that effect in two recent cases: Rowen v. LeMars Mutual Insurance Company, 357 N.W.2d at 581; and Hitachi Sales Corp. v. Commercial Trust Savings Bank, 342 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983). These defendants should have heeded those warnings.

Rowen v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa, 357 N.W.2d 579, 581 (Iowa 1984); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.101(1)(b), .103, .104(1)(a), .108. Because this is a jurisdictional issue, we may raise it sua sponte. See In re M.T., 714 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Iowa 2006) ("Questions concerning this court's jurisdiction may be raised upon the court's own motion."); River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984) ("Even though neither party has questioned our jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, we will sua sponte dismiss an appeal that is neither authorized by our rules nor permitted by court order."). And the defendants' failure to file a motion to dismiss the appeal "does not confer upon us jurisdiction to entertain" the appeal. Forte v. Schlick, 85 N.W.2d 549, 552 (Iowa 1957).

It may even be followed by a second appeal once final judgment has been entered." River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 478 (Iowa 1984); see also Wesley, 594 N.W.2d at 28 (recognizing a party's participation in arbitration does not prevent it from contesting the arbitrability of the dispute in an appeal of the arbitrator's decision). "The possibility of fragmented appeals — one interlocutory, a second taken from the final judgment — should be avoided whenever possible.

A ruling is not final when the trial court intends to act further on the case before signifying its final adjudication of the issues." River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984) (citation omitted); see Kiesau v. Bantz, ___ N.W.2d ___. 2004 WL 1933623, at *6 (Iowa Sept. 1, 2004) ("A ruling sustaining a motion for summary judgment, which disposes of the entire case, is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, while an order overruling a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory."). Here, it clear that the Iowa District Court presiding over the Pillsbury state court action intends further action on the case since Pillsbury's breach of contract claim against Wells remains to be determined at trial.

We do not consider a ruling final if the district court intends to act further on the case before entering its final decision of the issues. See River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984). Here, the district court explicitly recognized its ruling on Matlock's liberty restrictions would not be final until it ruled on the terms of supervision, if any.

We recognize the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable final judgment. See River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984); see alsoIowa R.App. P. 6.103. However, no party raised the issue on appeal. Nevertheless, we treat the appeal as an interlocutory review.

We recognize the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable final judgment. See River Excursions, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.103. However, no party raised the issue on appeal. Nevertheless, we treat the appeal as an interlocutory review.