With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a “final order” for appealability purposes has long been a feature of the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. See Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Dorgan, 225 N.W.2d 278, 280 (N.D.1974); Danger v. Gray, 73 N.D. 437, 442, 15 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1944). This Court explained in Colgate-Palmolive Co., 225 N.W.2d at 280: There are many decisions and actions taken in the course of an administrative proceeding which are not subject to review by the courts. A proceeding might be delayed interminably if every ruling on evidence or procedure was the subject of an appeal to the district court. The hearing must proceed to some conclusion in order that the whole of the actions taken on the record accumulated may be reviewed in the course of an appeal. Matters must be ripe for review to avoid 580 (N.D.1994) (<HOLDING>); Industrial Comm’n of North Dakota v. Kuntz,

A: holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order
B: holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
C: holding that an order denying intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the applicant from becoming a party to the action and taking jurisdiction under  1291
D: holding an order denying a nonpartys motion to intervene is appealable because it effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action
D.