Slaughter, J.
Appellate jurisdiction here is premised on the trial court’s entry of a final judgment. But the court’s entry—the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion—was not final because (among other reasons) it did not resolve all claims as to all parties. Thus, there was no final judgment. We grant transfer, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand.
….
An appellate court will typically hear an appeal only after a trial court has entered a final judgment. Means v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1158, 1163 (Ind. 2023). The final-judgment rule’s rationale is to enhance judicial economy by avoiding duplicative appeals. Ibid. The rule has exceptions, but no exception applies here. DeCola premised his appeal on entry of a final judgment below, and the court of appeals proceeded accordingly. Yet, on this record, the trial court’s order satisfies none of the five definitions of a “final judgment”—set out in Rule 2(H) of our appellate rules:
• The order did not “dispose[] of all claims as to all parties”. App. R. 2(H)(1). To the contrary, the order disposed of nothing. DeCola’s quiet-title claim remains, as does Norfolk’s lack-of-notice argument.
• The order made no express determination or direction in writing under Trial Rules 54(B) or 56(C) that judgment should be entered as to fewer than all issues, claims, or parties. Id. at 2(H)(2).
• The order was not deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C). Id. at 2(H)(3).
• The order was not a ruling on a motion to correct error under Trial Rule 59. Id. at 2(H)(4).
• And the order was not otherwise deemed final by law. Id. at 2(H)(5).
No party raised the issue of appellate jurisdiction below, and neither did the court of appeals. But whether an order is immediately appealable is a jurisdictional question that cannot be waived and can be raised at any time, including by a reviewing court on its own motion. Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003). We raise the jurisdictional issue here to remind ourselves and our judicial colleagues of the importance of ensuring that courts exercise judicial power only where our jurisdiction is secure. Imposing and enforcing limits on judicial power are important not only in their own right, but in sending the vital message that we police ourselves just as vigilantly as we do other government actors.
For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.