(1) an order denying an application to compel arbitration made under paragraph (a) of section two;
(2) an order granting an application to stay arbitration made under paragraph (b) of section two;
(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. Such appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in an action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671 (Mass. 2007).
Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671 (Mass. 2007). “” The Birchwood defendants then appealed under G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a) (1), which grants a right of interlocutory appeal from orders denying an application to compel arbitration.”
Commonwealth v. Philip Morris Inc., 864 N.E.2d 505 (Mass. 2007). “We reach the same conclusion under the Massachusetts Arbitration Act, G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a) (6). See Miller v.”
Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC, 466 Mass. 793 (Mass. 2014). “§ 16 and G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a). We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.”
St. Fleur v. WPI Cable Sys./Mutron, 879 N.E.2d 27 (Mass. 2008). “WPI Cable Systems/Mutron (WPI) appeals pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a) (1), from the denial of its motion to dismiss the discrimination complaint of Olga St.”
Weston Sec. Corp. v. Aykanian, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 72 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2ד§§ 1-16 (1994), which, in cases involving interstate commerce, permits an appeal from an order compelling arbitration, 6 preempts the Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act, G.”
Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., Inc., 910 N.E.2d 317 (Mass. 2009). “The defendants appealed pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a) (1), which grants a right of interlocutory appeal from orders denying an application to compel arbitration.”
Askenazy v. KPMG LLP, 988 N.E.2d 463 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2דG. L. c. 251, § 18[a][1]”). Therefore, only KPMG’s appeal from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration is properly before us, and we confine our consideration to that claim of error alone.”
Quirk v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 400 N.E.2d 858 (Mass. 1980). “231, § 118, and a notice of appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 18. In its petition, Data asked the Appeals Court to (a) reverse *764 the orders of the Superior Court denying Data’s motions to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, (b) determine that the plaintiffs’ claims…”
Ladd v. Scudder Kemper Investments, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. 2001). “Scudder’s motion was denied, whereupon Scudder took a proper interlocutory appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 18 (a) (1). We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.”
Joulé, Inc. v. Simmons, 459 Mass. 88 (Mass. 2011). “After a hearing, a different Superior Court judge (motion judge) accepted the MCAD’s argument that its authority to conduct an investigation and adjudication of Simmons’s claim of discrimination was not affected by the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, and ordered that Joulé’s…”
Askenazy v. KPMG LLP, 988 N.E.2d 463 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “G. L. c. 251, § 18[a][1]”). Therefore, only KPMG’s appeal from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration is properly before us, and we confine our consideration to that claim of error alone.”
Weston Sec. Corp. v. Aykanian, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 72 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “§§ 1-16 (1994), which, in cases involving interstate commerce, permits an appeal from an order compelling arbitration, 6 preempts the Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act, G.”
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.