Enelow-Ettelson Doctrine

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

• Hodes v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro ed Altri-Gestione Montonoave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Commissario of the Flotta Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria and Chandris (Italy)
  858 F.2d 905· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a foreign forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was reasonably communicated and enforceable, reversing the lower court's decision.
• M. Spiegel & Sons OIL Corp. v. B. P. OIL Corp.
  531 F.2d 669· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction and denying a stay or transfer, as exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA).
• Thompson v. House OF Nine, Inc.
  482 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a stay pending arbitration is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only if the underlying action was historically at law and the stay was sought to resolve an equitable defense, and that the equitable claims he
• Nat'l Iranian OIL Co. v. Ashland OIL, Inc.
  817 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration and affirmed the denial, finding that the forum selection clause designating Tehran as the seat of arbitration was enforceable and could not be overridden by claims of
• Abernathy v. Southern California Edison
  885 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 10×
  Orders granting stays pending arbitration or compelling arbitration are not ordinarily appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as injunctions, even if amended to expedite the process, absent extraordinary circumstances of irreparable harm.
• Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Birenbaum
  860 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, as such orders are not automatically appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) after the repudiation of the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine.
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  846 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a motion to stay or refer issues to the Interstate Commerce Commission is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. The Underwriters, Inc.
  846 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order staying proceedings pending arbitration, as such an order is not a final decision and does not meet the criteria for the collateral-order doctrine or permissive appeal.
• In re Hops Antitrust Litig. (Four Cases). Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, GmbH
  832 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The dissenting judge disagreed, arguing for appellate jurisdiction.
• Webb v. R. Rowland & Co., Inc.
  800 F.2d 803· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce, and district courts have discretion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.
• Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. v. Cen-Vi-Ro Concrete Pipe & Prods. Co., Inc.
  776 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order to arbitrate was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Pepper v. Miani
  734 F.2d 1420· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to stay proceedings because the order was not an interlocutory order refusing an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Oasis OIL & Ref. Corp. v. Armada Transp. & Ref. Co. & Armada Petroleum Corp.
  719 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order staying proceedings pending arbitration is not appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the underlying claim is for specific performance, nor is the finding of a contract appealable as a collateral order.
• USM Corp. v. GKN Fasteners Ltd.
  578 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 9×
  Amended pleadings that attempt to retroactively establish appellate jurisdiction do not relate back to validate an untimely appeal.
• Swenson v. Mgmt. Recruiters Int'l, Inc.
  872 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's order staying proceedings pending arbitration was immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and the collateral order doctrine because enforcing an arbitration clause that violates public policy has serious and irreparable consequ
• Crist v. Miller
  846 F.2d 1143· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a motion to stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration is not appealable as a collateral order unless the appellant demonstrates irreparable harm.
• Cost Bros., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  760 F.2d 58· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a surety's right to a stay pending arbitration is governed by state surety law, not federal law, even when the underlying contract involves interstate commerce.
• In re the Arb. between Towers v. Brown
  732 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prior state court order denying arbitration, even if erroneous under federal law, is res judicata in federal court if California law would give it preclusive effect.
• Admin. Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., Inc. v. Royal Am. Managers, Inc.
  854 F.2d 1272· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration because the motion did not encompass all claims and parties involved in the underlying dispute, thus violating the policy against piecemeal litigation.
• Steele v. L.F. Rothschild & Co.
  864 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under the collateral order doctrine, § 1292(b), or mandamus.
• Hamilton v. Honorable Bob W. Robertson
  854 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order enjoining a party from filing new lawsuits within the same district court, without leave, is not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Manning v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
  833 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration, finding that the appellants failed to present an adequate basis to oppose or vacate the order despite procedural irregularities.
• Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Shell OIL Co.
  820 F.2d 898· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's refusal to stay proceedings was premature and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
• Mayacamas Corp. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
  806 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 6×
• Gave Shipping Co., S.A. v. In action for exoneration from or limitation of liability
  634 F.2d 1156· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order staying an indemnity claim in an admiralty case pending arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying action is not an 'action at law' for purposes of the Enelow-Ettelson rule.
• Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.
  867 F.2d 809· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement was not broad enough to encompass a claim of fraud in the inducement of the agreement itself.
• B & R Assocs. v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc.
  835 F.2d 526· 4th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that when parties agree to a broadly worded arbitration clause, the arbitrator, not the court, should decide the scope of that clause.
• United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  562 F.2d 294· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a motion to stay condemnation proceedings is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) when the stay was not sought to advance an equitable defense.
• In re the Complaint OF Hornbeck Offshore (1984) Corp. & Hornbeck Offshore Operators, Inc. v. Coastal Carriers Corp.
  981 F.2d 752· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the arbitration clause in the towage agreement was broad and encompassed the indemnity/contribution dispute, requiring a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.
• Moretrench Am. Corp. v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co.
  839 F.2d 1284· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 2×
  A stay order in a suit at law, granted to enforce a contractual condition precedent requiring resolution of disputes in another forum, is not immediately appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, as it is not based on an equitable claim or defense.
• Dias v. Bank OF Haw.
  764 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 2×
  An order staying execution of a federal TILA judgment to permit a state court to decide a claim that might be set off is appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson rule as an interlocutory order relating to an injunction.
• United States v. Panhandle E. Corp.
  842 F.2d 685· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-21
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a stay of proceedings because the underlying action contains substantial equitable claims, rendering the entire action equitable in character under the Enelow-Ettelson rule.
• Diskin v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc.
  836 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-22
  A stay order pending arbitration is appealable if the underlying suit is legal in nature, and under New York law, an arbitration clause is a material addition requiring express assent, which was not present here.
• Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.
  709 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-17
  The court held that an order denying a pre-trial motion to enforce a forum selection clause is reviewable as a collaterally final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the denial of a forum non conveniens claim is not collaterally final. The court also found that it had discreti