Uniform Arbitration Act, so we look not only to Texas cases but also to those from courts in other states that have adopted section 19. Compare id. § 171.098(a), with UNIF. ARBITRATION Act § 19, 7 U.L.A. 739 (1956). The majority of Texas courts of appeals that have considered the issue have concluded that an order denying confirmation of an award, while also vacating and directing a rehearing, is not appeal-able. See Thrivent r Ass’n of Beresford, 656 N.W.2d 744, 746 (S.D.2003) (noting that the language “without directing a rehearing” in the Nebraska statute is “meaningful and not superfluous” (internal quotations omitted)). Intermediate appellate courts in other UAA jurisdictions have come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Connerton, Ray & Simon v. Simon, 791 A.2d 86, 88 (D.C.2002) (<HOLDING>); Kowler Assocs. v. Ross, 544 N.W.2d 800, 802
holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award holding that when it is apparent that an order confirming or denying confirmation of an arbitration award does not represent the conclusion of the proceeding on the merits it lacks the quality of finality  and is not appealable holding appealable order which explicitly denied confirmation vacated award and directed rehearing but stating that we do not imply the order would have been appealable absent the provision denying confirmation holding that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable because it is not listed in the uaa statute and because it is not final holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants