Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marshall, Amaya & Anton v. Arnold-Dobal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 30, 2011No. 3D10-1939Published

1DissentLagoa, J.

For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent. In 1997, the appellee, plaintiff below, Karin Arnold-Dobal (“Dobal”), entered into an original employment agreement with Damus, Ecker, Rosenthal and Marshall, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Emergency Room Medical Associates (“ERMA”). The employment agreement contained the following arbitration clause:

All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of, or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by three person arbitration in accordance with the rule of the American Arbitration Association unless…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Seifert v. US Home Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1999
  3. Teledyne, Inc., Teledyne Canada Limited, and Teledyne Cm Products, Inc. v. Kone Corporation, Outokumpu Oy and Rammer Oy, Finnish CorporationsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Armas v. Prudential Securities, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  5. Murphy v. Courtesy Ford, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API