for Lutherans v. Brock, 251 S.W.3d 621, 627 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). But see 209 S.W.3d 888, 895. This is the identical conclusion reached by the state supreme courts that have considered the question. See, e.g., Me. Dep’t of Transp. v. Me. State Employees Ass’n, 581 A.2d 813, 815 (Me.1990) (stating that “[t]o allow a party to appeal before the rehearing by simply filing a motion to confirm, a motion that would be denied by the court in conjunction with its order vacating the award and directing a rehearing, would be to circumvent [provisions equivalent to TAA (a)(5) ]”); Karcher Firestopping v. Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc., 204 P.3d 1262, 1265-66 (Nev.2009) (<HOLDING>); Double Diamond Constr. v. Farmers Coop.
holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that the appellant developed his argument sufficiently to raise the issue for appellate review holding that such an order is not sufficiently final to be suitable for appellate review