(concurring in the result).
The majority opinion simply ignores the intended construction of the language of Rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and does not provide this Court with greater control over its calendar. Although the majority states that “the Seventh Circuit’s approach is more in line with our needs than that of the Second Circuit,” that approach is inconsistent with the language of Rule 54(b), ignores one of the primary purposes of the rule, and has been followed by few, if any, courts. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has rejected the “different facts” test for the very reason that the Seventh Circuit adopted it, stating: “If the relevant criteria for defining a ‘separate’ claim within the meaning of Rule 54(b) are, as the district court indicated, the necessity for proof of some different facts, and the application of distinguishable law, a host of pre-trial substantive rulings would be swept within the Rule’s domain.” Tolson v. United States, 732 F.2d 998, 1001 (D.C. Cir.1984) (footnotes omitted).
Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has had a difficult time applying its factual distinctness test, as evidenced by recent opinions. See, e.g., Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 919 F.2d 1230, 1236-38 (7th Cir.1990); Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson Wax Dev. Corp., 908 F.2d 1363, 1366-68 (7th Cir.1990). In Olympia Hotels, the court stated: “[W]e think that some of our previous cases place too much weight on the existence and extent of factual overlap between the two claims.” 908 F.2d at 1367. The court also stated that “considerable” factual overlap would no longer be a “decisive consideration” in denying Rule 54(b) appeals. The court held: “If the claims are legally distinct and involve at least some separate facts, the district court has the power to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment, and it becomes a matter of the district judge’s discretion_” 908 F.2d at 1368 (emphasis in original).
I submit that the Second Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 54(b), which I would adopt, is consistent with our needs and also has the advantage of providing a clearer standard for trial judges, attorneys, and this Court, as well as being a correct construction that is in harmony with the history of the rule. See, e.g., Acha v. Beame, 570 F.2d 57, 62 (2d Cir.1978); Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 224 F.2d 198, 199 *1106(2d Cir.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1006, 76 S.Ct. 651, 100 L.Ed. 868 (1956).
The Seventh Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 54(b), adopted by the majority, is clearly inconsistent with the rule’s history. See, e.g., National Metalcrafters v. McNeil, 784 F.2d 817 (7th Cir.1986); Jack Walters & Sons Corp. v. Morton Bldg., Inc., 737 F.2d 698 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 432, 83 L.Ed.2d 359 (1984). The Utah rule is substantially the same as the federal rule and the history of that rule has some relevance to the intent of the language of our Rule 54(b). Of course this Court is not bound by any federal precedent, but we consistently look to authorities which have interpreted a federal rule as guidance for our construction of a state counterpart. Originally, the federal rule contained the words “transaction or occurrence” in the definition of claim for relief, making that definition much like the “different facts” definition adopted by the majority opinion. The words “transaction or occurrence” were deleted in the 1948 amendment of the rule. See 10 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2657 (2d ed. 1983).
Following that amendment, the United States Supreme Court specifically rejected the “same transaction or occurrence” test. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956). In fact, the Court indicated that although the claim for relief at issue in that case had been appropriately certified, the claim may not have been appealable under the former rule, thus providing “an excellent illustration of the value of the amended rule which was designed to overcome that difficulty.” 351 U.S. at 437, 76 S.Ct. at 900. The Court held the claims to be separate even though one of the claims “rest[ed] in part on some of the facts ... involved in” the others. 351 U.S. at 437 n. 9, 76 S.Ct. at 900 n. 9.
In a related case decided at the same time, the Court wrote that “the test of appealability under the original rule was whether the adjudicated claims were separate from, and independent of, the unadju-dieated claims. However, as set forth in [Sears ], that test led to uncertainty, of which the present case might have been an example. The amended rule overcomes that difficulty....” Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Eng’g & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 452, 76 S.Ct. 904, 908, 100 L.Ed. 1311 (1956) (footnotes and citations omitted). The Court also stated that the “amended rule meets the needs and problems of modern judicial administration by adjusting the unit for appeal to fit multiple claims actions, while retaining a right of judicial review over the discretion exercised by the District Court in determining when there is no just reason for delay.” 351 U.S. at 453. These two Supreme Court cases indicate that a “different facts” test was amended out of Rule 54(b) and that the amended rule was specifically designed to overcome the difficulties caused by that test, the test this Court now adopts.1 Cold Metal Process Co. also makes clear that appellate courts retain jurisdiction to dismiss improperly certified judgments. The Second Circuit test, which I submit is the proper construction, is “consistent with both Supreme Court decisions.” 10 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2657.
The majority also confuses the first and second requirements found in Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 692 P.2d 765, 767 (Utah 1984). The “different facts” test relates to the first requirement mentioned in Pate — that of multiple claims for relief— and not the second requirement — the finality of the judgment — as the majority mis*1107takenly believes. The three Pate requirements are taken from 10 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2656 (1983). The majority relies on language from Federal Practice and Procedure § 2657 in its analysis of the second requirement which actually pertains to the first.
In addition to ignoring the history of Rule 54(b), I believe that the majority errs for two other reasons in adopting a “different facts” test. First, the majority approach undermines the discretionary aspect of Rule 54(b) appeals. Second, the majority relies entirely on its stated concern for calendar management.2 Those concerns are better met by reviewing Rule 54(b) certifications for abuse of discretion under a “no just reason for delay” standard.
In some instances, appeal to this Court is appropriate although other claims remain unresolved in the trial court. “The basic purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in entering judgment on a distinctly separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until the final adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate appeal available.” 10 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2654, at 35. This is a decision which should be made in the discretion of the trial judge, who is familiar with the parties, the facts, and the claims and is therefore in the best position to make this determination. Allowing the trial judge, who is most familiar with a case, the discretion to certify certain claims for appeal serves a valuable purpose which cannot be accomplished by the granting of interlocutory appeals.
There are two aspects to the role of an appellate court in Rule 54(b) cases. The court must first scrutinize the trial court’s determination on factors such as the interrelationship of the claims so as to ensure that juridical concerns are met. Second, the court reviews the discretionary judgment of the trial court, which “should be given substantial deference, for that court is ‘the one most likely to be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons for delay.’ ” Curtiss-Wright Corp, v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1466, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980) (quoting Sears, 351 U.S. at 437, 76 S.Ct. at 900). The test adopted by the majority is not consistent with this two-step review process. By making factual separability the sole criterion for a Rule 54(b) appeal, the •Seventh Circuit approach undermines the discretion given to the trial court. The Seventh Circuit’s approach is flawed because its “definition of a claim is so broad that it engulfs the discretionary aspects of the rule_” Note, Multiple Claims Under Rule 54(b): A Time for Reexamination?, 1985 B.Y.U. L.Rev. 327, 327-28. By interfering with the trial court’s discretion, the majority substantially diminishes the effectiveness of Rule 54(b).3
*1108Furthermore, regardless of which approach is followed, this Court retains control of Rule 54(b) appeals and may decline to hear such appeals if the trial court has abused its discretion in finding that there is no just reason for delay. The trial court’s “discretion is to be exercised ‘in the interest of sound judicial administration.’ Thus, in deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay ... a district court must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.” Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. at 1465 (citations omitted). Some of the factors to be used in this determination are “whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” 446 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. at 1465.
One difficulty with the majority’s interpretation of Rule 54(b) is that there will be appeals which should be allowed under Rule 54(b) but which will not qualify under the “different facts” standard. The majority bars all such appeals for the sake of judicial economy because it believes that “[i]t would be a waste of judicial resources” for this Court to learn the facts of a case twice. However, if an appeal would waste judicial resources, the trial court ought not certify it because there is a just reason for delay. If the trial court does certify, this Court may decline to hear the appeal on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the judgment. This approach serves the needs of this Court, the litigants, and the trial courts.
In sum, I would adopt the approach of the Second Circuit rather than that of the Seventh. The Second Circuit test is the approach that was intended by the language of the 1948 amendment, which this Court adopted when it first promulgated the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The Second Circuit approach does not interfere with the desirable discretion of the trial court, gives this Court ample control over Rule 54(b) appeals, and has the advantage of providing a clearer and better defined standard for judges and attorneys. The result of the majority’s artificial standard is that some appeals that could appropriately be taken under Rule 54(b) will be denied despite the interests of justice, litigants, and judicial administration.
. This point is made even more clear by the language of amended Rule 54(b). "The amended rule, in contrast to the rule in its original form, treats counterclaims, whether compulsory or permissive, like other multiple claims.” Cold Metal Process, 351 U.S. at 452, 76 S.Ct. at 908. Thus, using factual distinctness as the test for appeals under Utah Rule 54(b), which also does not distinguish between compulsory and permissive counterclaims, is directly inconsistent with the rule. Basically, the Seventh Circuit approach would prohibit Rule 54(b) appeals of compulsory counterclaims, a prohibition which is clearly inappropriate under the language of either the federal or Utah rule. For an example of the Seventh Circuit’s struggle to deal with this inherent inconsistency in its construction of Rule 54(b), see Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson Wax Dev. Corp., 908 F.2d 1363, 1366-68 (7th Cir.1990).
. The Court ought to look to the language and purpose of Rule 54(b) for the appropriate guidance in construing that rule. If, as a matter of policy, the Court dislikes Rule 54(b), perhaps the rule should be abolished. Attorneys and trial judges will certainly not be able to construe the rules of procedure if the language and history of the rules are thought to be secondary in importance to some ad hoc consideration of a majority of this Court.
. The majority argues that there are differences between the power of Utah and federal appellate courts to consider interlocutory appeals which make the Seventh Circuit approach more appropriate for Utah appellate courts. Specifically, it argues that because interlocutory orders in federal courts are only appealable in limited circumstances, and Utah appellate courts have the power to review any interlocutory order, federal appellate courts may have policy reasons for expanding Rule 54(b) appeals which do not exist in Utah courts.
However, it is not necessarily true that the federal courts are motivated by policy concerns different from those which motivate us. Although Utah appellate courts may have broader discretionary judgment to hear interlocutory orders than do federal appellate courts, the federal courts are subject to appeals of right which would only be discretionary for Utah courts. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1988) provides for such appeals in cases involving injunctions. Even if Utah courts hear more interlocutory appeals through an exercise of discretion, the federal courts hear more interlocutory appeals as appeals of right. Furthermore, in federal courts "the availability of review, short of complete disposition of an action, [is becoming] more and more within the discretion of the courts of appeals.” 6 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice [[54.43, at 54-291 (2d ed. 1990). In spite of this increased discretion, the majority of federal courts do not attempt to limit Rule 54(b) appeals as does the Seventh Circuit.