Legal Opinion
ETS-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Albert S. Pratt, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 20, 1965No. 19828PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
We hold on the facts here that the order of the district court denying a stay of proceedings pending arbitration was appealable. We interpret Shanferoke Coal and Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 293 U.S. 449, 55 S.Ct. 313, 79 L.Ed. 583, and Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, 99 L.Ed. 233, as permitting the appeal of the order refusing to stay this action under the Miller Act pending arbitration.
We find no sound distinction between whether an action is one at law or is founded upon a statute and none is suggested in Baltimore Contractors, supra. Compare…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilko v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Wilko v. SwanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States ex rel. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Ets-Hokin Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Ets-Hokin & Galvan, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, an Illinois Corporation, Ets-Hokin Corporation, a California Corporation, and the Travelers Indemnity Company, a Connecticut Corporation, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968