From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark County v. Empire Electric, Inc.

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 3, 1980
96 Nev. 18 (Nev. 1980)

Summary

concluding an order compelling arbitration is not appealable under the UAA

Summary of this case from Superpumper, Inc. v. Nerland Oil, Inc.

Opinion

No. 12219

January 3, 1980

Appeal from order compelling arbitration, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Howard W. Babcock, Judge.

Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and Victor W. Priebe, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

Rose, Edwards, Hunt Pearson, and Floyd A. Hale, Las Vegas, for Respondent Empire Electric Inc. Bell, Leavitt Green, and Michael J. Grace, Las Vegas, for Respondent Blanchard Construction Company.


OPINION


Clark County has appealed from an order of the district court compelling arbitration of a dispute concerning a contract for the construction of a fire station. It is the contention of Clark County that respondent Blanchard Construction Company, the party who moved to compel arbitration with the county, waived its right to arbitrate the controversy.

Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the district court's order compelling arbitration is not appealable. We agree and grant the motion to dismiss.

The Uniform Arbitration Act, NRS 38.015 et seq., establishes procedures which govern arbitration agreements and delineates specific orders regarding arbitration from which an appeal may be taken. An order compelling arbitration is not listed therein as being subject to appeal, and is therefore not appealable. As the court noted in In re Laufman's Petition, 29 Cal.Rptr. 829, 831 (Cal.App. 1963), quoting Jardine-Matheson Co., Ltd. v. Pacific Orient Co., 280 P. 697 (Cal.App. 1929),

NRS 38.205 provides:
"1. An appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under NRS 38.045;
(b) An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under subsection 2 of NRS 38.045;
(c) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;
(d) An order modifying or correcting an award;
(e) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or
(f) A judgment or decree entered pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.015 to 38.205, inclusive.
2. The appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action."

". . . . the fact that the Legislature saw fit to specify in one code section the different orders and judgment from which appeals may be taken clearly indicates, in our opinion, an intention to restrict the appeals in such proceeding to orders and judgment therein specified, and the obvious reason for not including among such appealable orders the one which directs the parties to proceed with the arbitration was that if at the very threshold of the proceeding the defaulting party could appeal and thereby indefinitely delay the matter of arbitration, the object of the law and the purpose of the written agreement of the parties would be entirely defeated."

A party may preserve for review the issue of waiver of the right to arbitrate by objecting to the trial court's confirmation of the arbitration award and thereafter raise the issue on appeal pursuant to NRS 38.205. See Roeder v. Huish, 467 P.2d 902 (Ariz. 1970).

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Clark County v. Empire Electric, Inc.

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 3, 1980
96 Nev. 18 (Nev. 1980)

concluding an order compelling arbitration is not appealable under the UAA

Summary of this case from Superpumper, Inc. v. Nerland Oil, Inc.

noting that the law's policy favoring arbitration would be defeated should the defaulting party be permitted to appeal at the threshold of a proceeding and indefinitely delay the arbitration matter

Summary of this case from Michalowski v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of State

addressing an earlier version of the UAA

Summary of this case from Tallman ex rel. Situated v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

interpreting an identical statute and holding that "the fact that the Legislature saw fit to specify in one code section the different orders and judgment from which appeals may be taken clearly indicates, in our opinion, an intention to restrict the appeals in such proceeding to orders and judgment therein specified"

Summary of this case from Cnty. of Haw. v. UniDev, LLC

interpreting an identical statute and holding that "the fact that the Legislature saw fit to specify in one code section the different orders and judgment from which appeals may be taken clearly indicates, in our opinion, an intention to restrict the appeals in such proceeding to orders and judgment therein specified"

Summary of this case from Cnty. of Hawai‘i, Corp. v. Unidev, LLC

construing former NRS 38.205, replaced October 1, 2001, by current NRS 38.247, and concluding that the statute precluded appellant from appealing the district court order compelling arbitration

Summary of this case from Whitemaine v. Aniskovich
Case details for

Clark County v. Empire Electric, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CLARK COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APPELLANT…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jan 3, 1980

Citations

96 Nev. 18 (Nev. 1980)
604 P.2d 352

Citing Cases

Tallman ex rel. Situated v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

We have said that the reason for not allowing interlocutory appeals of orders compelling arbitration is…

Kindred v. Dist. Ct.

"An order compelling arbitration is not listed [in NRS 38.205] as being subject to appeal, and is therefore…