judicial time and machinery on abstract or remote problems rather than those that are substantial and present. Generally, we consider an administrative agency decision to be final if it “terminate[s] the issue,” leaving the agency -with “nothing more to decide.” Ash v. Traynor, 2000 ND 75, ¶3, 609 N.W.2d 96. [¶ 8] Our view of administrative finality mirrors this Court’s treatment of final orders or judgments under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. This Court has said that “only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties to the action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 are appealable.” Mitzel v. Schatz, 167 N.W.2d 519, 524 (N.D.1968). See also Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc., 2001 ND 101, ¶8, 627 N.W.2d 379 (<HOLDING>); Wyatt v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc., 524 N.W.2d
holding remand based on forum selection clause not within  1447c holding that remand order based on forum selection clause is reviewable on appeal holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired