Legal Opinion

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. v. B. Peter Brown and David F. Riding

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 20, 1984No. 82-1526PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby’s (TPFC) petition compelling arbitration and staying an action brought by Brown and Riding in the state court in California. Jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity. The order compelling arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Gavlik Construction Co. v. H.F. Campbell Co., 526 F.2d 777, 782 (3d Cir.1975). TPFC argues that the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine prevents our hearing an appeal from the order staying proceedings in the state…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. General Electric Company v. Deutz AgCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  2. Velasquez v. FranzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
  3. Dorothy Zosky v. Daniel Boyer and Boenning and ScattergoodCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  4. Robert Wade v. City of Pittsburgh, Victor Muto and William BurkeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
  5. Rowland v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990

28 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