Esther Perera v. Siegel Trading Company, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation, Frank Mazza and Howard Siegel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• disregarding this court's prior statement that an arbitration order is final if it terminates all proceedings before the district court
• rejecting argument that order to arbitrate in embedded proceeding was final just “because ... Judge ... sent all claims to arbitration”
• disregarding this court’s prior statement that an arbitration order is final if it terminates all proceedings before the district court
• \[Prior] cases demonstrate that this court finds arbitration orders final if arbitration is the sole issue before the court and interlocutory if raised in an embedded proceeding.\
• “[Prior] eases demonstrate that this court finds arbitration orders final if arbitration is the sole issue before the court and interlocutory if raised in an embedded proceeding.”
• “[T]he district court cannot expand this court’s appellate jurisdiction by simply entering a Rule 54[b] judgment. That is, a district court’s entiy of a Rule 54[b] judgment cannot transform an interlocutory decision into a final decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).