the remand order itself was reviewable was not before the Supreme Court. By necessity, however, the Court stayed the City of Waco remand order so that the Court of Appeals could comply with the Court’s order to review the dismissal of Fidelity’s cross-action. Inasmuch as we find that all three prongs of the collateral final order doctrine are satisfied in the present situation, we conclude that the dismissal order is final. 3. In addition, we are satisfied that where, as here, dismissal of an appeal will have the practical effect of denying later appellate review of a district court’s underlying order, the underlying order must be final, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United Steelworkers of America, Local 1913 v. Union Railroad Co., 648 F.2d 906, 909-10 (3d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). See also Horizons International, Inc. v.
holding that when dismissal of an appeal will have the practical effect of denying later review of a district courts order appellate jurisdiction under  1291 may be appropriate holding that the court did not have appellate jurisdiction under  1291 or  1292a3 because the district courts order striking class action allegations did not settle parties rights holding that generally appellate courts will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity