document requirement. [The separate judgment rule] does require every judgment to be set forth on a separate document. Appellant, however interprets this to mean that two documents are required in all cases. This is unfounded. [The separate judgment rule] applies where it is uncertain whether a final judgment has been- entered, as where a trial judge writes an opinion or memorandum providing only the basis for the entry of judgment, but containing apparently directive or dispositive words such as “defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.” In such a situation, a judgment must be set out on a document separate from the opinion or memorandum. United States v. Clearfield State Bank, 497 F.2d 356, 358-59 (10th Cir.1974); cf. Mitchell v. Idaho, 814 F.2d 1404, 1405 (9th Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>). The separate judgment rule requires that the
holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document holding that lack of a separate judgment does not preclude the taking of an appeal from a district courts final decision because the parties may waive the separate judgment requirement where one has accidentally not been entered holding that the issue of the finality of an order in a childcustody case was controlled by the fact that the trial courts judgment was final as to the facts presented at trial and would only be modified in the event that new facts subsequently developed justifying a modification of that judgment holding that an eight page order discussing the facts and law of the case while detailing the reasons for the courts decision was not a separate judgment holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court