context: Jones acknowledges that the Veterans Court's interim orders are treated like remand orders and are generally not reviewable.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 256 F.3d 1318, 1320
citation_a.parenthetical: "In applying the statute that grants us jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court, we have generally declined to review non-final orders of the Veterans Court."
citation_a.sentence: See Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318, 1320 (Fed.Cir.2001) (“In applying the statute that grants us jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court, we have generally declined to review non-final orders of the Veterans Court.”); see also Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945) (finding that an “order is final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute judgment”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 324 U.S. 229, 233
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that an "order is final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute judgment"
citation_b.sentence: See Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318, 1320 (Fed.Cir.2001) (“In applying the statute that grants us jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court, we have generally declined to review non-final orders of the Veterans Court.”); see also Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945) (finding that an “order is final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute judgment”).