Legal Opinion · Dissent
General Electric Supply Co. v. Warden Electric, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 14, 1988No. 87-1407Published
1DissentWright, J.
I believe that the trial court order in the case at bar is a final, appealable order. To find otherwise, as the majority opinion does, leads to an anomalous result and defeats the whole purpose of arbitration, which is designed to avoid the formalities, delay, expense, and vexation of ordinary litigation.
In Tilberry v. Body (1986), 24 Ohio St. 3d 117, 24 OBR 308, 493 N.E. 2d 954, this court recognized that a substantial right of a party to a contract is *383affected where “the trial court’s action greatly alters the agreement and the rights provided therein that were propounded by the parties…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Amato v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Cabrini Medical Center v. DesinaNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Dewart v. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- N v. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden v. A. O. Smith Corporation, and Armor Elevator Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Coastal Industries, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Automatic Steam Products Corp., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.