Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Services, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an order denying a motion to compel arbitration satisfied the third requirement because it “determine[d] only the forum in which the parties should settle their dispute without reaching any of [the] ... claims”
• determining that an order denying a petition to compel arbitration “conclusively determines whether [the underlying] claims should be resolved in arbitration by relegating the dispute to a judicial forum”
• observing that “equitable 10 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1971 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2026 Pg: 11 of 11 estoppel allows non-signatories to a contract to enforce a contract’s arbitration provision” in some circumstances
• observing “that in the arbitration context ‘equitable estoppel’ is a misnomer because, unlike equitable estoppel in a contracts context, detrimental reliance is not required”
• \[W]e emphasized that [the collateral order] doctrine should be applied sparingly in only the most extraordinary circumstances.\
• “[W]e emphasized that [the collateral order] doctrine should be applied sparingly in only the most extraordinary circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).