Legal Opinion
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,322 Fred Danford v. Albert E. Schwabacher, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 24, 1974No. 72-1811PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and HILL, * District Judge.
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge:
Schwabaeher & Company (“Schwa-baeher”) and its codefendants appeal from an order denying their motion to stay Danford’s district court, action pending referral of Danford’s claims to arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. 1 We hold that the order is not appealable.
The grant or denial of a stay of an action pending arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 3 is not a “final decision” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. (Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n (9th Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 266, 267; New England…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Enelow v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- A. & E. Plastik Pak Co., Inc. v. Monsanto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Coinbase, Inc. v. BielskiSupreme Court of the United States · 2023
- Martha Olson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.