rule allowing immediate appeal from an order compelling arbitration was not preempted by § 16 of the FAA because permitting immediate appeal did not undermine the purposes or objectives of the FAA. Simmons, 532 S.E.2d at 439. That court viewed the issue as one of a difference in the timing for an appeal from an order compelling arbitration and concluded that it made no difference to the objectives of 99); Xaphes v. Mowry, 478 A.2d 299, 301 (Me.1984) (dismissing appeal for lack of final judgment that 8 (Tex.1992) (“When Texas courts are called on to decide if disputed claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause under the [FAA], Texas procedure controls that determination”); Belmont Constructors, Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co., 896 S.W.2d 352, 355 (Tex.Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Defendants cite us to Eure v. Cantrell
holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration recognizing the same rule in texas courts holding that faa does not require appellate review of order interlocutory under state law denying motion to compel arbitration and overruling prior decision finding such a requirement holding order denying arbitration appealable under texas law and stating that although the faa also permits a party to appeal from an interlocutory order denying a request to compel arbitration federal procedure does not apply in texas courts even when texas courts apply the federal act footnote omitted holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied