green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Napier
(2×)
See Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869 , 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed.2d 123 (1994) (quoting McBro Planning & Dev.
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Jones
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753 (11th Cir.1993) [cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869 , 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed.2d 123 (1994)]; McBro Planning & Development Co. v. Triangle Electrical Construction Co., 741 F.2d 342 (11th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
See Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757-58 (11th Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, -U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed.2d 123 (1994); J.J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Epix v. MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES
See, e.g., Sunkist Soft Drinks v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F. 3d 753 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869 , 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed. 2d 123 (1994) (holding that where the original signatory to a license agreement was later acquired and became a part of the parent corporation and there was a nexus between the plaintiff's claims and the license agreement, the plaintiff was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the parent corporation); Singer v. Commodities Corp., 292 N.J.Super. 391, 411-15 , 678 A. 2d 1165 (App.Div.1996) (holding that a securities broker who signed an employ…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tom Williams Motors, Inc. v. Thompson
Pursuant to this policy, as I have written before: "Several federal courts have ... held, based upon the theory of estoppel, that `[a] signatory was bound to arbitrate with a nonsignatory at the nonsignatory's insistence because of "the close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were `intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.'"' Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, 64 F.3d 773, 779 (2d Ci…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Med Center Cars, Inc. v. Smith
(2×)
See also Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869 , 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed.2d 123 (1994); McBro Planning & Dev.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Dickinson
Several federal courts have addressed this issue and have held, based upon the theory of estoppel, otherwise known as the "close relationship test," that "[a] signatory was bound to arbitrate with a nonsignatory at the nonsignatory's insistence because of `the close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were `intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.'" Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Martin
(2×)
Several federal courts have addressed this issue and have held, based upon the theory of estoppel, that "[a] signatory was bound to arbitrate with a nonsignatory at the nonsignatory's insistence because of `the close relationship between the entities involved,' as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were `intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.' " Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 779 (2d Cir. 1995); see also, Sunkist Sof…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc.
See, e.g., Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753, 757-58 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied 513 U.S. 869 , 115 S.Ct. 190 , 130 L.Ed.2d 123 (1994) (McBro and Hughes “rest on the foundation that ultimately, each party must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting their claims.”); Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779 (equitable estoppel not applicable because the alleged violation did not arise out of or integrally relate to the contract); Goodwin v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 970 F.Supp. 1007, 1017 (M.D.Ala.1997) (equitable estoppel applied where the plaintiffs’ clai…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stripling v. Southtrust Bank, N.A.
The issue here is whether SouthTrust Bank must be a signatory to a contract in order for the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act to apply to it. 2 Federal courts have addressed this issue and have held, based upon the theory of estoppel, that “[a] signatory was bound to arbitrate with a nonsignatory at the nonsig-natorjds insistence because of the ‘close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory’s obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were ‘intimately founded in and intertw…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Stripling
(2×)
The issue here is whether SouthTrust Bank must be a signatory to a contract in order for the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act to apply to it. [2] Federal courts have addressed this issue and have held, based upon the theory of estoppel, that "[a] signatory was bound to arbitrate with a nonsignatory at the nonsignatory's insistence because of the `close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract ... and [the fact that] the claims were `intimately founded in and intertwined wi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
v.
Del Monte Corp.
v.
Del Monte Corp.
No. 94-69.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1994.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.