Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, arising from an order of the State Corporation Commission which concerned the correlative rights of owners of natural gas drawn from a common source.
Since 1913, Oklahoma has regulated the extraction of natural gas, partly to prevent waste and partly to avoid excessive drainage as between producers sharing the same pool. The legislation provided that owners might take from a common source amounts of gas proportionate to the natural flow of their respective wells, but not more than 25% of that natural flow without the consent of the Corporation Commission; that any person taking gas away from a gas field, except for certain specified purposes, “shall take ratably from each owner of the gas in proportion to his interest in said gas”; and that such ratable taking was to be upon terms agreed upon by the various well owners, or, in the event of failure to agree, upon terms fixed by the Corporation Commission.
The Hugoton Gas Field is one of the largest in the United States, covering a vast area in several States, including Oklahoma. It was discovered in 1924 or 1925, but the Oklahoma portion was not developed until 1937. Republic, a Delaware corporation, obtained permission to do business in Oklahoma in 1938, purchased gas leases in this field and drilled wells, removing the gas in its own pipelines. In 1944, the Peerless Oil and Gas Company completed a well in a portion of the gas field otherwise tapped only by Republic. It had no market for the gas obtained from this well, nor means of transporting such gas to any market. It offered to sell the gas to Republic, which refused it. Peerless then applied to the Corporation Commission for an order requiring Republic to take such gas from it “ratably” — that is, to take the same proportion of the natural flow of Peerless’ well as Republic took of the natural flow of its own wells. After a hearing, the Commission found that the production of natural gas in the Hugoton field was in excess of the market demand; that Republic had qualified to do business in Oklahoma with full knowledge of the existing legislation requiring the ratable taking of natural gas; and that Republic was taking more than its ratable share of gas from that portion of the field tapped both by its wells and that belonging to Peerless, thereby draining gas away from Peerless’ tract and, in effect, taking property belonging to Peerless. The Commission ordered Republic:
“1. . . . to take gas ratably from applicant’s [Peerless’] well . . ., and to make necessary connection as soon as applicant lays a line connecting said well with respondent’s [Republic’s] line, and to continue to do so until the further order of this Commission ; provided that, applicant shall lay its line from its well to the lines of respondent at some point designated by the respondent, but in said Section 14 in which said well of Peerless Oil and Gas Company has been drilled; and said respondent is required to make said designation immediately and without unreasonable delay, and in event of failure of respondent so to do, respondent shall no longer be permitted to produce any of its wells located in the Hugoton Oklahoma Gas Field.
“2. The terms and conditions of such taking of natural gas by Republic Natural Gas Company from said Peerless Oil and Gas Company’s well shall be determined and agreed upon by and between applicant and respondent; and in the event said parties are unable to agree, applicant and respondent are hereby granted the right to make further application to the Commission for an order fixing such terms and conditions; and the Commission retains jurisdiction hereof for said purpose.”
On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Republic, having been given leave to enter the State on the basis of the legislation governing natural gas production, might not challenge its validity, and that neither the order nor the legislation on which it is based runs counter to asserted constitutional rights. 198 Okla. 350. The court interpreted the Commission’s order as giving Republic “a choice between taking the gas from Peerless and paying therefor direct, or marketing the gas and accounting to Peerless therefor, or to shut in its own production from the same common source of supply.” 198 Okla. at 356. Invoking both the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, Republic appealed to this Court.
This case raises thorny questions concerning the regulation of fugacious minerals, of moment both to States whose economy is especially involved and to the private enterprises which develop these natural resources. Cf. Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U. S. 55; Railroad Commission v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573, 311 U. S. 570. Before reaching these constitutional issues, we must determine whether or not we have jurisdiction to do so.
Ever since 1789, Congress has granted this Court the power of review in State litigation only after “the highest court of a State in which a decision in a suit could be had” has rendered a “final judgment or decree.” § 237 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 344, rephrasing § 25 of the Act of September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 85. Designed to avoid the evils of piecemeal review, this reflects a marked characteristic of the federal judicial system, unlike that of some of the States. This prerequisite for the exercise of the appellate powers of this Court is especially pertinent when a constitutional barrier is asserted against a State court’s decision .on matters peculiarly of local concern. Close observance of this limitation upon the Court is not regard for a strangling technicality. History bears ample testimony that it is an important factor in securing harmonious State-federal relations.
No self-enforcing formula defining when a judgment is “final” can be devised. Tests have been indicated which are helpful in giving direction and emphasis to decision from case to case. Thus, the requirement of finality has not been met merely because the major issues in a case have been decided and only a few loose ends remain to be tied up — for example, where liability has been determined and all that needs to be adjudicated is the amount of damages. Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18; Martinez v. International Banking Corp., 220 U. S. 214, 223; Mississippi Central R. Co. v. Smith, 295 U. S. 718. On the other hand, if nothing more than a ministerial act remains to be done, such as the entry of a judgment upon a mandate, the decree is regarded as concluding the case and is immediately reviewable. Board of Commissioners v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127.
There have been instances where the Court has entertained an appeal of an order that otherwise might be deemed interlocutory, because the controversy had proceeded to a point where a losing party would be irreparably injured if review were unavailing. Cf. Clark v. Williard, 294 U. S. 211; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545; and compare Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 204, with Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650, 657. For related reasons, an order decreeing immediate transfer of possession of physical property is final for purposes of review even though an accounting for profits is to follow. In such cases the accounting is deemed a severed controversy and not part of the main case. Forgay v. Conrad, supra; Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 362; Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120. But a decision that a taking by eminent domain is for a public use, where the amount of compensation has not been determined, is not deemed final, certainly where the property will not change hands until after the award of compensation. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251; cf. Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337; Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229. One thing is clear. The considerations that determine finality are not abstractions but have reference to very real interests — not merely those of the immediate parties but, more particularly, those that pertain to the smooth functioning of our judicial system.
On which side of the line, however faint and faltering at times, dividing judgments that were deemed “final” from those found not to be so, does the judgment before us fall? The order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, as affirmed below, terminates some but not all issues in this proceeding. Republic is required to take ratably from Peerless, but it may do so in any one of three ways. If, as is most probable, Republic would choose not to close down its own wells, under the Commission’s order it must allow Peerless to connect its well to Republic’s pipeline. But there has been left open for later determination, in event of failure to reach agreement, the terms upon which Republic must take the gas, the rates which it must pay on purchase, or may charge if it sells as agent of Peerless. Does either its alternative character, or the fact that it leaves matters still open for determination, so qualify the order as to make it short of “final” for present review?
We turn first to the latter point. Certainly what remains to be done cannot be characterized as merely “ministerial.” Whether or not the amount of gas to be taken by Republic from Peerless can be ascertained through application of a formula, the determination of the price to be paid for the gas if purchased, or the fees to be paid to Republic for marketing it if sold on behalf of Peerless, clearly requires the exercise of judgment. Nor is there any immediate threat of irreparable damage to Republic, rendering postponed review so illusory as to make the decree “final” now or never. The Commission’s order requires Republic to designate a point on its pipeline at which Peerless might attach a line, and after Peerless had done so to connect it immediately. But it does not appear that the order requires Republic to commence taking Peerless’ gas before the terms of taking have either been agreed upon or ordered by the Commission. Nor does it appear that Republic would have to bear the expense of connecting the pipeline, nor that such expense would be substantial. Indeed, the incurring of some loss, before a process preliminary to review here is exhausted, is not in itself sufficient to authorize our intervention. Cf. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-52. But even i>f the Commission’s order were construed to require Republic to take and dispose of Peerless’ gas immediately — and we are not so advised by the State court — there is no ground for assuming that any loss that Republic might incur could not be recovered should the completed direction of the Oklahoma Commission, on affirmance by that State’s Supreme Court, ultimately be found to be unconstitutional. Merely because a party to a litigation may be temporarily out of pocket, is not sufficient to warrant immediate review of an incomplete State judgment. Appellant, of course, has the burden of affirmatively establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U. S. 649, 651. The policy against premature constitutional adjudications demands that any doubts in maintaining this burden be resolved against jurisdiction. See citation of cases in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brandéis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341, 345, 348.
The condemnation precedents attract this case more persuasively than do the accounting cases. Where it is claimed that a decree transferring property overrides an asserted federal right, as in Forgay v. Conrad, supra, and Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, supra, no disposition of the subsequent accounting proceeding can possibly make up for the defeated party’s loss, since the party who has lost the property must also pay to his opponent what the accounting decrees. Hence his desire to appeal the issue of the right to the property will almost certainly persist. On the other hand, in an eminent domain case, as in a case like this, the fate of the whole litigation may well be affected by the fate of the unresolved contingencies of the litigation. An adequate award in an eminent domain case or a profitable rate in the case before us might well satisfy the losing party to acquiesce in the disposition of the earlier issue. It is of course not our province to discourage appeals. But for the soundest of reasons we ought not to pass on constitutional issues before they have reached a definitive stop. Another similarity between this case and the condemnation cases calls for abstention until what is organically one litigation has been concluded in the State. It is that the matters left open may generate additional federal questions. This brings into vivid relevance the policy against fragmentary review. In accounting cases, that which still remains to be litigated can scarcely give rise to new federal questions. The policy against fragmentary review has therefore little bearing. But contests over valuation in eminent domain cases, as price-fixing in this type of case, are inherently provocative of constitutional claims. This potentiality of additional federal questions arising out of the same controversy has led this Court to find want of the necessary finality of adjudicated constitutional issues in condemnation decrees before valuation has been made. Like considerations are relevant here.
In short, the guiding considerations for determining whether the decree of the court below possesses requisite finality lead to the conclusion that this case must await its culmination in the judicial process of the State before we can assume jurisdiction. “Only one branch of the case has been finally disposed of below, therefore none of it is ripe for review by this court.” Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 371. This makes it unnecessary to consider whether the mere fact that the decree gave alternative commands precluded it from being final. Cf. Paducah v. East Tennessee Tel. Co., 229 U. S. 476; Jones’s Adm’r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213; Note, 48 Harv. L. Rev. 302, 305-306. Since the judgment now appealed from lacks the necessary finality, we cannot consider the merits. All of Republic’s constitutional objections are of course saved.
Appeal dismissed.
L. 1913, e. 198, §§ 1-3 (Okla. Stat. (1941) tit. 52, §§ 231-33):
“Section 1. All natural gas under the surface of any land in this state is hereby declared to be and is the property of the owners, or gas lessees, of the surface under which gas is located in its original state.
“Section 2. Any owner, or oil and gas lessee, of the surface, having the right to drill for gas shall have the right to sink a well to the natural gas underneath the same and to take gas therefrom until the gas under such surface is exhausted. In case other parties, having the right to drill into the common reservoir of gas, drill a well or wells into the same, then the amount of gas each owner may take therefrom shall be proportionate to the natural flow of his well or wells to the natural flow of the well or wells of such other owners of the same common source of supply of gas, such natural flow to be determined by any standard measurement at the beginning of each calendar month; provided, that not more than twenty-five per cent of the natural flow of any well shall be taken, unless for good cause shown, and upon notice and hearing the Corporation Commission may, by proper order, permit the taking of a greater amount. The drilling of a gas well or wells by any owner or lessee of the surface shall be regarded as reducing to possession his share of such gas as is shown by his well.
“Section 3. Any person, firm or corporation, taking gas from a gas field, except for purposes of developing a gas or oil field, and operating oil wells, and for the purpose of his own domestic use, shall take ratably from each owner of the gas in proportion to his interest in said gas, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between said owners and the party taking such, or in case they cannot agree at such a price and upon such terms as may be fixed by the Corporation Commission after notice and hearing; provided, that each owner shall be required to deliver his gas to a common point of delivery on or adjacent to the surface overlying such gas.”
See also L. 1915, c. 197, §§ 4, 5 (Okla. Stat. (1941) tit. 52, §§ 239, 240):
“Section 4. That whenever the full production from any common source of supply of natural gas in this state is in excess of the market demands, then any person, firm or corporation, having the right to drill into and produce gas from any such common source of supply, may take therefrom only such proportion of the natural gas that may be marketed without waste, as the natural flow of the well or wells owned or controlled by any such person, firm or corporation bears to the total natural flow' of such common source of supply having due regard to the acreage drained by each well, so as to prevent any such person, firm or corporation securing any unfair proportion of the gas therefrom; provided, that the Corporation Commission may by proper order, permit the taking of a greater amount whenever it shall deem such taking reasonable or equitable. The said commission is authorized and directed to prescribe rules and regulations for the determination of the natural flow of any such well or wells, and to regulate the taking of natural gas from any or all such common sources of supply within the state, so as to prevent waste, protect the interests of the public, and of all those having a right to produce therefrom, and to prevent unreasonable discrimination in favor of any one such common source of supply as against another.
“Section 5. That every person, firm or corporation, now or hereafter engaged in the business of purchasing and selling natural gas in this state, shall be a common purchaser thereof, and shall purchase all of the natural gas which may be offered for sale, and which may reasonably be reached by its trunk lines, or gathering lines without discrimination in favor of one producer as against another, or in favor of any one source of supply as against another save as authorized by the Corporation Commission after due notice and hearing; but if any such person, firm or corporation, shall be unable to purchase all the gas so offered, then it shall purchase natural gas from each producer ratably. It shall be unlawful for any such common purchaser to discriminate between like grades and pressures of natural gas, or in favor of its own production, or of production in which it may be directly or indirectly interested, either in whole or in part, but for the purpose of prorating the natural gas to be marketed, such production shall be treated in like manner as that of any other producer or person, and shall be taken only in the ratable proportion that such production bears to the total production available for marketing. The Corporation Commission shall have authority to make regulations for the delivery, metering and equitable purchasing and taking of all such gas and shall have authority to relieve any such common purchaser, after due notice and hearing, from the duty of purchasing gas of an inferior quality or grade.”
In the Catlin case our decision was based on the general rule that condemnation orders prior to determination of just compensation are not appealable. The wartime statutes there involved were urged by the claimants as a reason for not applying the general rule. We rejected this contention.
This case is unlike those in which a rate had been fixed, subject to a continuing jurisdiction to modify it later. Cf. Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 324 U. S. 548; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U. S. 24. Here, no rates have been set, and their future establishment has been left open.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations