A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Bing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Bing

446 So. 2d 134, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 9255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 1983

DocketNo. 83-730

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 134 (A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Bing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Bing, 446 So. 2d 134, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 9255 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

The parties (except two) entered into agreements containing arbitration clauses. Respondents argue and the trial court found (as we assume from the result) that the particular issue in controversy involves conversion of funds, a matter not covered by the arbitration clauses. Because we find that the questioned transactions are inextricably interwoven with respondents’ employment and the contracts controlling employment and having determined that petitioner’s pleading in the trial court did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitration, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, reverse the order of March 9, 1983, and remand this cause for the entry of an order requiring that the issues be submitted to arbitration. See Raymond, James & Assoc., Inc. v. Maves, 384 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERSEY, Judge.

The parties (except two) entered into agreements containing arbitration clauses. Respondents argue and the trial court found (as we assume from the result) that the particular issue in controversy involves conversion of funds, a matter not covered by the arbitration clauses. Because we find that the questioned transactions are inextricably interwoven with respondents’ employment and the contracts controlling employment and having determined that petitioner’s pleading in the trial court did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitration, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, reverse the order of March 9, 1983, and remand this cause for the entry of an order requiring that the issues be submitted to arbitration. See Raymond, James & Assoc., Inc. v. Maves, 384 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 134, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 9255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ag-edwards-sons-inc-v-bing-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack