Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 2013No. 87062-4Published

1ConcurrenceMadsen, C.J.

¶36 (concurring) — The majority issues an edict that if a party does not ask for discretionary review of an order compelling arbitration, a prejudice standard must be applied on judicial review. The edict is antiarbitration and contrary to the modern trend favoring arbitration. Indeed, most courts conclude that interlocutory review of orders to compel should rarely be granted. See, e.g., Phillips v. Sprint PCS, 209 Cal. App. 4th 758, 766, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274 (2012) (“[o]rdinarily, no immediate appeal lies from an order compelling arbitration and review of the order must await appeal from a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Gove v. Career Systems Development Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
  4. Scott v. Cingular WirelessWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Salim Oleochemicals v. M/v ShropshireCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002

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