Ind. Code » Title 34
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-57-2-19 (2026)

Appeals authorized; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 19. (a) An appeal may be taken from:

(1) an order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 3 of this chapter (or IC 34-4-2-3 before its repeal);

(2) an order granting an application to stay arbitration made under section 3(b) of this chapter (or IC 34-4-2-3(b) before its repeal);

(3) an order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;

(4) an order modifying or correcting an award;

(5) an order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or

(6) a judgment or decree entered pursuant to the provisions of this chapter (or IC 34-4-2 before its repeal).

     (b) The appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-2-19.]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.53.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Brumley v. Commonwealth Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brumley v. Commonwealth Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “As a point of comparison, the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is appealable as a matter of right, Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1); Int'l Creative Mgmt.”
Robert A. Masters v. Leah Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570 (Ind. 2015). · cites it 4× “Code § 34-57-2-14 and Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19. But, such review is explicitly limited to modification or correction on the following grounds: (1) there was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to…”
Williams v. Orentlicher, 939 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1); see also Ind.”
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 818 N.E.2d 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “See, Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1). This statute provides no relief for Daimler, however, because appeals from consumer leases, sales, or loan contracts are specifically exempted from the coverage of the Arbitration Act.”
Haber v. Biomet, Inc., 578 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2009). “See Ind. Code § 34-57-2-19 . In its latest decision on issue preclusion, Miller, the Supreme Court of Indiana discussed how appealability is an important factor for establishing whether an issue is sufficiently final for issue preclusion purposes: In general, issue preclusion…”
Stardust Ventures, LLC v. Gary Roberts & Teresa Roberts, 65 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(l). However, a “claimed error in an interlocutory order is not waived for failure to take an interlocutory appeal but may be raised on appeal from the final judgment.”
North Willow Operating LLC v. Clay, 943 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19 (providing that an appeal may be taken from an order denying an application to compel arbitration and that “[t]he appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action”); Ind.”
James F. Glass v. Gilliatte Gen. Contractors, Inc. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “As noted above, a party opposing the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-MI-1642 January 30, 2017 Page 7 of 9 confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award may raise a number of defenses, including fraud.”
Whitesell Precision Components, Inc. v. Autoform Tool & Mfg., LLC (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “For reasons explained more fully below, this appeal solely involves the trial court’s denial of Whitesell’s motion to compel arbitration.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Brett Milton, 271 N.E.3d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Appellate Rule 14(D) (interlocutory appeals other than those set forth in Appellate Rule 14(A)-(C) “may be taken [] as provided by statute”).”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1): 4 cases
Brumley v. Commonwealth Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “As a point of comparison, the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is appealable as a matter of right, Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1); Int'l Creative Mgmt.”
Williams v. Orentlicher, 939 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “See Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1); see also Ind.”
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 818 N.E.2d 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “See, Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(1). This statute provides no relief for Daimler, however, because appeals from consumer leases, sales, or loan contracts are specifically exempted from the coverage of the Arbitration Act.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Brett Milton, 271 N.E.3d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellate Rule 14(D) (interlocutory appeals other than those set forth in Appellate Rule 14(A)-(C) “may be taken [] as provided by statute”).”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(l): 1 case
Stardust Ventures, LLC v. Gary Roberts & Teresa Roberts, 65 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19(a)(l). However, a “claimed error in an interlocutory order is not waived for failure to take an interlocutory appeal but may be raised on appeal from the final judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.