which, as noted by the Court, — S.W.3d at-, is one of two Minnesota cases that come to opposite conclusions: one permitting appeal without discussing jurisdiction, Safeco Ins. Co. v. Goldenberg, 435 N.W.2d 616, 621 (Minn.Ct. App.1989), and the other disallowing appeal because it “would be inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation and the statutory prohibition against appeals from orders directing a rehearing,” Kowler, 544 N.W.2d at 801. Thus, it is accurate to say that the majority of states that have arbitration statutes comparable to ours have concluded that there is no appeal from an order that vacates an award, directs a rehearing, and denies confirmation. Even more compelling is the s Union, Local No. 320 v. County of Carver, 571 N.W.2d 598, 599 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Notably, the TAA looks to civil court
holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken