a procedural issue. Id. at 272. Therefore, we apply Texas procedure in determining the proper avenue for review of the challenged order. Id. Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts may review only final orders or judgments. Id. As a general rule, a final order or judgment is one that finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims, based on the record, regardless of its language. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex.2001); see also Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 338, 295 S.W.2d 890, 892 (1956) (final order disposes of all issues and parties “so that no future action by the trial court will be necessary in order to settle and determine the entire controversy”). But see Brittingham-Sada de Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>). This rule applies whether the merits of a
recognizing that in probate cases multiple judgments final for purposes of appeal can be rendered on certain discrete issues holding that final closing orders in a probate proceeding can be vacated through a rule 60b motion despite the fact that section 7531001 of the probate code discharges a personal representative from further claim or demand after a final closing order has been entered holding that the discovery rule does not apply to  bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments holding that even though the state trial court rendered its judgments in the defendants prior cases on the same day with their sentences to run concurrently the district court did not clearly err in finding that those prior cases were not consolidated for sentencing due to cases separate indictments and judgments and the absence of a consolidation order recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin