Enelow-Ettelson Doctrine

85 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.
  708 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 87×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the interlocutory order and that the district court properly interpreted the arbitration clause to cover claims arising under the contract, affirming the stay pending arbitration of those specific issues.
• NEW England Power Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.
  456 F.2d 183· 1st Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 85×
  The court held that neither the district court's denial of a stay of arbitration nor its granting of a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration were immediately appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
• Danford v. Schwabacher
  488 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that an order denying a stay of an action pending arbitration is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless it falls under the Enelow-Ettelson rule, which requires the underlying action to be characterized as legal and the stay to be sought for an equitable defen
• Microsoftware Computer Sys., Inc. v. Ontel Corp.
  686 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the denial of a stay motion, sought to defer to concurrent state court proceedings, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay is sought to enable the prior determination of an equitable defense.
• Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co.
  654 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to sua sponte order a party to arbitrate an issue not previously agreed upon or submitted, and that FLSA claims were not subject to the exhaustion requirement.
• Stateside Mach. Co., Ltd. v. Alperin
  526 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 48×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not cause irreparable harm, and a stay of a hybrid legal/equitable action is also not appealable.
• Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  723 F.2d 1068· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals as of right, and denied petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition, because the district court's denial of a stay was a discretionary order not subject to immediate appellate review.
• Langley v. Colonial Leasing Co. OF NEW England
  707 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 46×
  The denial of a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4, when filed during a pending underlying suit, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a final judgment, nor is it appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the underlying suit is deemed 'legal' f
• Miller v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.
  791 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 45×
  The court held that an order compelling arbitration of some but not all claims in a pending suit is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) via the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine. It also found that while the 1934 Act claims are not arbitrable, the state law claim is, and r
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that the dispute at issue was a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, not subject to arbitration.
• Mellon Bank v. Pritchard-Keang NAM Corp.
  651 F.2d 1244· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order staying proceedings pending arbitration was not a final order and not appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Whyte v. THinc Consulting Grp. Int'l
  659 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration is not a final order and is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying action is equitable.
• Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Allstate Indem. Co.
  722 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not unambiguously mandate appraisal as a condition precedent to filing suit, and therefore the district court erred in ordering appraisal.
• Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc.
  735 F.2d 763· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a motion to transfer a federal action to another federal court is distinguishable from a motion to dismiss in favor of a foreign court.
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc.
  725 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 36×
  An order denying a stay is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying suit is a mixed law-equity action where equitable relief is more than merely incidental to legal relief.
• USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners
  574 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a stay pending arbitration is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying action involves equitable claims.
• Olson v. Paine
  806 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, which allows interlocutory appeals of equitable stays in suits at law, is still authoritative despite its age and perceived flaws. The court reluctantly affirmed its continued application.
• Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp.
  763 F.2d 866· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the jury's determination that the parties did not intend to incorporate the arbitration clause into the 1980 purchase order was not irrational and therefore affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration.
• Rohrer v. Perkins
  728 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a motion to remand a case to state court.
• Schine v. Schine
  367 F.2d 685· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the order denying a separate trial of a counterclaim is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action would have been cognizable in equity.
• Jules Lusardi v. Honorable Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.
  855 F.2d 1062· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 29×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the class decertification order and that mandamus was not warranted except for specific issues related to administrative filings.
• McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v. Pa. Power & Light Co.
  849 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a stay pending arbitration after the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine was overruled.
• Mar-Len OF La., Inc. v. Parsons-Gilbane
  732 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 28×
  The Enelow-Ettelson rule, which distinguishes appealability based on law/equity, should be reconsidered and abandoned due to its archaic nature and the advent of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Atsa OF Cal., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co.
  702 F.2d 172· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering neutral arbitrators and compelling Abulhassan to arbitrate, but correctly stayed proceedings pending arbitration for ATSA and Cairo.
• Buffler v. Elec. Computer Programming Inst., Inc.
  466 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 26×
  An order granting a preliminary injunction against arbitration proceedings is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court improvidently exercised its discretion in issuing such an injunction without sufficient basis.
• Page v. Moseley
  806 F.2d 291· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that appellate jurisdiction exists over the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, that the defendants did not waive their right to arbitration, that claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are arbitrable, but claims under the RICO stat
• Mayaja, Inc. v. Bodkin
  803 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are non-arbitrable based on circuit precedent, while private RICO claims are arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Alascom, Inc. v. ITT N. Elec. Co.
  727 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that none of the appellant's claims were arbitrable under the contract's arbitration provision, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in staying arbitration and refusing to stay its own proceedings.
• H.C. Lawton, JR., Inc. v. Truck Drivers
  755 F.2d 324· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 23×
  A denial of a stay pending arbitration is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying action is legal in nature and the arbitration is sought as an equitable defense. Disputes involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargain
• Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp.
  727 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to compel arbitration pending a trial on the existence of the arbitration agreement is a nonappealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Jeske v. Brooks
  875 F.2d 71· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that federal securities claims are arbitrable, and the arbitration clause is valid despite the rescinded SEC Rule 15c2-2. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the order compelling arbitration of state law claims.
• Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. Much
  754 F.2d 773· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an order vacating and remanding only the damages portion of an arbitration award is not a final judgment appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it requires more than ministerial action and does not moot the issues on appeal. The court also held that the ord
• Arnold v. Arnold and Steven T. Arnold
  920 F.2d 1269· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that its jurisdiction to hear the appeal was proper because the district court's order, which dismissed the complaint in deference to arbitration and entered final judgment, constituted a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 9 U.S.C. § 15(a)(3).
• Wilson Wear, Inc. v. United Merchs. & Mfrs., Inc.
  713 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 20×
  An order granting a stay of judicial proceedings pending arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying cause of action is legal, and claims of rescission of the entire contract, rather than the arbitration clause itself, are for the arbitrator to decide
• Hays & Co. for Monge Oil Corp. v. Merrill Lynch
  885 F.2d 1149· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the appeal under the Judicial Improvements Act and that the bankruptcy trustee is bound by the debtor's pre-petition arbitration agreement for claims derived from the debtor, but not for claims brought under the trustee's § 544(b) powe
• McDONNELL Douglas Fin. Corp. v. Pa. Power & Light Co.
  858 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the arbitration clause in the contract was narrow and did not encompass disputes regarding the utility's good faith in seeking redemption, only tax-related computations.
• VDA v. Drexel
  855 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order compelling arbitration and retaining jurisdiction is not immediately appealable as a final judgment, injunction, or collateral order.
• Patten Sec. Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Greyhound & Genetics, Inc.
  819 F.2d 400· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the order staying the action pending arbitration, and that the order should be affirmed because the party is bound by NASD arbitration rules and the forum selection clause did not waive arbitration rights.
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  763 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case.
• Denley v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
  733 F.2d 39· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal from the October 5 order compelling arbitration was untimely, and the November 26 order reaffirming it was not a final or appealable interlocutory order. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  750 F.2d 625· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A stay for Pullman abstention is appealable under the final-judgment rule, even if the federal suit is not entirely dismissed, because it can cause irreparable harm through delay.
• Gilmore v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
  811 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 15×
  A defendant's explicit waiver of a motion to compel arbitration is not automatically revived by the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.
• J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A.
  863 F.2d 315· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that all disputes arising in connection with the distribution contracts, including those labeled as conspiracy, unfair trade practices, tortious interference, conversion, abuse of process, libel, defamation, and injurious falsehood, are subject to arbitration under
• Pioneer Props., Inc. v. Martin
  776 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 14×
  A district court's order staying proceedings pending arbitration is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order granting an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Timberlake v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  Orders refusing to stay arbitration are not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because such appeals would undermine the efficiency of arbitration and are not final decisions. The Enelow-Ettelson doctrine does not apply to mixed law-equity actions.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Cottage Hill Operating Co.
  709 F.2d 452· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action and the sought-after defense do not meet the Enelow-Ettelson rule's requirements.
• Varo v. Comprehensive Designers, Inc.
  504 F.2d 1103· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order staying proceedings to compel arbitration of antitrust claims is appealable and that arbitration should be stayed pending resolution of the antitrust claims due to the strong possibility of a Sherman Act violation.
• Feldspar Trucking Co., Inc. v. Greater Atlanta Shippers Ass'n, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to refer questions to the ICC and to stay proceedings.
• Pierson v. Dean
  742 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 13×
  A broad arbitration clause in a customer agreement covers common law claims arising from the customer relationship, even if they involve fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, and the court must stay those claims for arbitration.
• Perera v. Siegel Trading Co.
  951 F.2d 780· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 12×
  An order compelling arbitration in an "embedded proceeding" (where other claims are also pending) is an interlocutory, non-final decision and thus not immediately appealable under the Arbitration Act, even if a Rule 54(b) judgment is entered.