proper legal procedures. Construing the requirements of the collateral order rule narrowly, we conclude that the matter at issue is effectively reviewable on appeal from final judgment. See Johnson, supra (noting that piecemeal appeals should be avoided); Watson, supra (explaining that the collateral order rule should be construed narrowly to preserve the integrity of the final judgment rule). Accordingly, because the requirements of the collateral rule are not satisfied, the Newspapers’ appeal must be quashed. Appeal QUASHED. FORD ELLIOTT, J., files a dissenting statement. FORD ELLIOTT, Judge, dissenting: Because I would find that the order appealed from is a collateral order, I would reach the merits of this appeal. See R.W. v. Hampe, 426 Pa.Super. 306, 626 A.2d 1218, 1219 (1993) (<HOLDING>). It is hard to imagine an order more separable
holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding that an order partially sealing the record to preclude plaintiffs name from being used in the caption was appealable as a collateral order holding order partially vacating a judgment was not appealable because it does not provide the ultimate decision in the case and questions remained before the district court holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment