of appellate jurisdiction, the requirement of a final judgment prevents piecemeal litigation. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 118-19, 869 P.2d 1334, 1337-38 (1994) (citing Powers v. Ellis, 55 Haw. 414, 417, 520 P.2d 431, 433 (1974)). However, the purpose of collateral estoppel is to prevent inconsistent results, prevent duplicative litigation, and promote finality and'judicial economy. See Dorrance, 90 Hawai'i at 148-49, 976 P.2d at 909-10 (citations omitted). Thus, for purposes of collateral estoppel, the requirement of a final judgment ensures that the decision to be given preclu-sive effect is not tentative or subject to change. See Glover v. Fong, 42 Haw. 560, 574 (1958); see also Kauhane v. Acutron Co., Inc., 71 Haw. 458, 465, 795 P.2d 276, 279 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Silver v. Queens Hospital, 63 Haw. 430,
holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that once the plaintiff withdrew his appeal the circuit courts judgment became final for res judicata purposes holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes