{
  "id": 8527055,
  "name": "THE BLUFFS, INC. v. PAUL V. WYSOCKI, T/A WYSCO CONTRACTORS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bluffs, Inc. v. Wysocki",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 838SC714",
  "first_page": "284",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 284"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "293 Minn. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        333389
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "cases involving refusal to stay arbitration"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "cases involving refusal to stay arbitration"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/293/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.E. 2d 956",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "371 Mass. 845",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        320491
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/371/0845-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Nev. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555945
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/96/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 So. 2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9724522
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/283/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 A. 2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Md. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903414
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/267/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ariz. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ariz.",
      "case_ids": [
        4209461
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz/105/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "670 P. 2d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        400459
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan-app-2d/9/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 443",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567731
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0486-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5586,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0821196406915225e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9089255782866106
    },
    "sha256": "b3ddbbb82718691c323fc557a0e032e8253cb35e89a8c94931098fdaaf6674f5",
    "simhash": "1:bb222ebf50811261",
    "word_count": 913
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Whichard concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE BLUFFS, INC. v. PAUL V. WYSOCKI, T/A WYSCO CONTRACTORS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nThe threshold issue is whether there is a right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration. For the following reasons, we hold there is not.\nG.S. l-567.3(a) provides that upon application of a party showing a written arbitration agreement, and the opposing party\u2019s refusal to arbitrate, the trial court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration. If the opposing party denies the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, the court must summarily decide the issue of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, and it must order arbitration if it finds the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.\nPursuant to G.S. l-567.18(a), appeals may be taken from:\n(1) An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under G.S. 1-567.3;\n(2) An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under G.S. l-567.3(b);\n(3) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;\n(4) An order modifying or correcting an award;\n(5) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or\n(6) A judgment or decree entered pursuant to the provisions of this Article.\nNoticeably absent from this list is an appeal from an order granting an application to compel arbitration.\nAn order compelling the parties to arbitrate is an interlocutory order. We do not believe it affects a substantial right and works an injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from a final judgment. It is not appealable under G.S. l-277(a) or G.S. 7A-27(d). See Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979). Following the conclusion of arbitration, a party may apply to the court for an order either confirming, vacating, modifying or correcting an arbitration award pursuant to G.S. 1-567.12, 1-567.13 or 1-567.14. Upon the entry of such an order, the trial court must enter a judgment or decree in conformity with such order. G.S. 1-567.15. A dissatisfied party then, pursuant to G.S. l-567.18(a)(3) -(6), has a right of appeal from the trial court\u2019s order or judgment. The parties thus have access to the courts. Moreover, the parties may present their defenses and contentions, including waiver, accord and satisfaction or compromise and settlement, novation, or duress, at the arbitration proceedings.\nOther states which have enacted the Uniform Arbitration Act hold that there is no right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration. Hodes v. Comprehensive Health Associates, 670 P. 2d 76 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). See Roeder v. Huish, 105 Ariz. 508, 467 P. 2d 902 (1970); Maietta v. Greenfield, 267 Md. 287, 297 A. 2d 244 (1972); Harris v. Insurance Co., 283 So. 2d 147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973); Clark County v. Empire Electric, Inc., 96 Nev. 18, 604 P. 2d 352 (1980); see cf. School Committee of Agawam v. Agawam Education Association, 371 Mass. 845, 359 N.E. 2d 956 (1977); Miyoi v. Gold Bond Stamp Co. Employees Retirement Trust, 293 Minn. 376, 196 N.W. 2d 309 (1972) (cases involving refusal to stay arbitration). In Clark County, supra, the Nevada Supreme Court stated a party could preserve the issue of the opponent\u2019s waiver of the right to arbitrate for appellate review by objecting to the trial court\u2019s confirmation of the award. Accord, Maietta v. Greenfield, supra. The Nevada statutes relating to confirmation, vacation, or modification of the award are identical to G.S. 1-567.12, .13, and .14. The appeal provisions are also virtually identical to G.S. 1-567.18.\nG.S. 1-567.20 provides that Article 45A, the Uniform Arbitration Act, is to be construed toward the end of making the law of all of the states enacting the Act uniform. In accordance with the purpose stated by G.S. 1-567.20, we hold that there is no immediate right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration. Plaintiff may raise the issue of waiver at arbitration and preserve the issue of waiver for appellate review by objecting to the confirmation of the award, if any.\nThe appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges Webb and Whichard concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Freeman, Edwards and Vinson, by George K. Freeman, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Kenneth M. Kirkman, and Griffin, Cochrane & Marshall, by Luther P. Cochrane and Lee C. Davis, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE BLUFFS, INC. v. PAUL V. WYSOCKI, T/A WYSCO CONTRACTORS\nNo. 838SC714\n(Filed 1 May 1984)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2; Arbitration and Award \u00a7 2\u2014 order compelling parties to arbitrate interlocutory\nAn order compelling the parties to arbitrate is an interlocutory order and does not affect a substantial right and does not work an injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from a final judgment. G.S. l-277(a) and G.S. 7A-27(d). Nor does G.S. l-567.18(a) provide a right to appeal from an order compelling arbitration. G.S. l-567.3(a), G.S. 1-567.12, G.S. 1-567.13, G.S. 1-567.14, G.S. 1-567.15, G.S. l-567.18(a)(3) -(6) and G.S. 1-567.20.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Bruce, Judge. Order entered 18 February 1983 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 April 1984.\nPlaintiff instituted this declaratory judgment action seeking to have the court construe an agreement between the parties and to restrain defendant from seeking arbitration of their dispute. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim, and subsequently filed a motion to stay court proceedings and to compel arbitration, among other motions. Following a hearing on the motion, the court allowed defendant\u2019s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration. Plaintiff appeals from the order compelling arbitration. An order staying arbitration pending this appeal was subsequently entered.\nFreeman, Edwards and Vinson, by George K. Freeman, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nKenneth M. Kirkman, and Griffin, Cochrane & Marshall, by Luther P. Cochrane and Lee C. Davis, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0284-01",
  "first_page_order": 316,
  "last_page_order": 318
}
