At page 547 waiver may not be inferred from the fact that a party does not rely exclusively on the arbitration provisions of a contract, but attempts to meet all issues raised in litigation between it and another party to the agreement.31 citing cases
- Valerie Kloosterman v. Metro. Hosp., 153 F.4th 501 (6th Cir. 2025). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973).
- Doe v. Piraino, No. 3:22-cv-00560 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2024).Accordingly, the court “assume[d] without deciding that our precedent asking whether a party’s actions are ‘completely inconsistent’ with reliance on arbitration survives Morgan.” Id. 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), the cou…
- Jason Schwebke v. United Wholesale Mortg. LLC, 96 F.4th 971 (6th Cir. 2024). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).
- Cobble v. T-Mobile Sprint, No. 3:21-cv-00415 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 22, 2024).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973)).
- Atlas Indus. Contractors LLC v. In2Gro Tech. LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02705 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2021).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).
- Gordon Schuster v. Prestige Senior Mgmt. LLC, 376 P.3d 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).In Germany v. River Terminal Railway Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973), the circuit court recognized that a party may waive arbitration without the court discussing prejudice as a factor.
- Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Fin., LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, & Roosevelt Coleman Jr., No. 04-15-00469-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 3, 2015). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (CA6 1973); Coenen v. R.
- KenAmerican Resources, Inc. v. Potter Grandchildren, LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D. Ky. 2013).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam)).
- Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 610 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2010).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam) and citing Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir.1997)); see also Manasher v. NECC Telecom, 310 Fed.Appx. 804, 806 (6th Cir.2009); Gen.
- Frida Sirota v. NECC Telecom, 310 F. App'x 804 (6th Cir. 2009).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
Show 21 more citing cases
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973); Ernst & Young LLP v. Baker O’Neal Holdings, Inc., 304 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir.2002); Ritzel Commc’ns v. Mid-American Cellular, 989 F.2d 966, 969-71 (8th Cir. 1993); Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. G…
- Rex v. CSA-Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 788 (W.D. Mich. 2007).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam)). “ ‘There is a strong presumption in favor of arbitration, and ... waiver of the right to arbitration is not to be lightly inferred.’ ” O.J.
- Kruse v. AFLAC Int'l, Inc., 458 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Ky. 2006).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam)).
- Highlands Wellmont Health Network, Inc. v. John Deere Health Plan, Inc., 350 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2003).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973)).
- Rich v. Walsh, 590 S.E.2d 506 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973)); National Found. for Cancer Research v. A.G.
- MailSource, LLC v. M.A. Bailey & Assocs., Inc., 588 S.E.2d 639 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973)).
- O.J. Distrib., Inc., A/K/A Great State Beverage v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., D/B/A Ferolito, Vultaggio & Sons, A/K/A Arizona Beverages, 340 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2003). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
- O.J. Distrib. v. Hornell Brewing, No. 01-1583 (6th Cir. Aug. 14, 2003).In light of this “[a]n agreement to arbitrate may be waived by the holding, we need not weigh the three factors a court considers actions of a party which are completely inconsistent with when setting aside an entry of default when service…
- Systran Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Giant Cement Holding, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 500 (N.D. Ohio 2003). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973).
- Uwaydah v. Van Wert Cnty. Hosp., 246 F. Supp. 2d 808 (N.D. Ohio 2002). Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973); American Locomotive Co. v. Gyro Process Co., 185 F.2d 316, 318 (6th Cir.1950); Southern Sys., Inc. v. Torrid Oven Ltd., 105 F.Supp.2d 848, 852 (W.D.Tenn.2000); The Central Trust Co. v. Anemostat Prods.
- Gen. Star Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Administratia Asigurarilor De Stat, 289 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
- Gen. Star Nat'l Ins. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 289 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
- S. Sys., Inc. v. Torrid Oven Ltd., 105 F. Supp. 2d 848 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).(recognizing that the right to stay proceedings and compel arbitration may be waived by the actions of a party which is completely inconsistent with any reliance thereon, without discussing prejudice as a factor)
- In Re the Arbitration Between H & M Charters, Inc. & Reed, 757 F. Supp. 859 (S.D. Ohio 1991).(Lexis Genfed Library, Dist. File)
- Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville v. Wedge Grp. Inc., 749 F. Supp. 851 (M.D. Tenn. 1990).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973).
- Ass'n of Owners of Kukui Plaza v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 705 P.2d 28 (Haw. 1985).Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Timothy McCarthy Construction Co., 436 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1971).” Germany v. River Terminal Railway Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973).
- Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican Nat'l Oil Co., 767 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1985).(waiver may not be inferred from the fact that a party does not rely exclusively on the arbitration provisions of a contract, but attempts to meet all issues raised in litigation between it and another party to the agre…)
- In The Matter Of The Complaint Of Sedco, Inc., 767 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1985).(waiver may not be inferred from the fact that a party does not rely exclusively on the arbitration provisions of a contract, but attempts to meet all issues raised in litigation between it and another party to the agre…)
- S.A. Mineracao Da Trindade-Samitri v. Utah Int'l Inc., 576 F. Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).Co., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir.1973); Coenen v. R.
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). Co., 477 F. 2d 546, 547 (CA6 1973); Coenen v. R.
- Eurice Nibbs v. Otis Felix, Comm'r of Pub. Saf., Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 726 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1984).See Germany v. River Terminal Ry., 477 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1973). 3 .
At page 546 “an agreement to arbitrate may be waived by the actions of a party which are completely inconsistent with any reliance thereon.”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- Keating v. Superior Court, 645 P.2d 1192 (Cal. 1982).
v.
the RIVER TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee
This case involves an interchange agreement between two railroads. Louis Germany, who is not a party to the appeal, sued The River Terminal Railway (RTR), his employer, and the Norfolk & Western Railway Company (N&W). He recovered a judgment against RTR for injuries caused by a defect in a railroad car of N&W which was under the control of RTR.
In a cross-claim against RTR, the interchange agreement was filed as an exhibit and relied upon by N&W. By a later pleading, RTR, relying on the same agreement, sought to recover one-half the verdict as well as one-half of all costs from N&W. Section 8 of that agreement provided for compulsory arbitration “[I]n case of any disagreement between the parties hereto as to the true construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this agreement, or as to the rights of either party hereunder, or as to any claim arising hereunder . ” The arbitration provisions of the agreement were specifically cited by RTR in a tendered amendment to a pleading in support of its position that the cross-claim of N&W failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The trial court refused to permit the "filing of the amended pleading which set up the arbitration provisions of the agreement and proceeded to interpret the agreement itself.
The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) favors the submission of disputes to arbitration in accordance with the intentions of the parties to an agreement as a means of easing court congestion. Galt v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 376 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1967). An agreement to arbitrate may be waived by the actions of a party which are completely inconsistent with any reliance thereon. Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Timothy McCarthy Construction Co., 436 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1971). However, waiver may not be inferred from the fact that a party does not rely exclusively on the arbitration provisions of a contract, but attempts to meet all issues raised in litigation between it and another party to the agreement. General Guaranty Insurance Co. v. New Orleans General Agency, Inc., 427 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1970).
The District Judge made no finding on the issue of the right of RTR to have the dispute between it and N&W decided by arbitration. Our review of the record convinces us there was no waiver by RTR in the district court pro[*548] ceedings. On appeal RTR has sought to abandon its request for arbitration “in the interest of concluding this dispute as rapidly as possible.” However, the courts are concerned that the salutary results of the policy expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act be realized.
The correct construction of the interchange agreement involved here will necessarily require an understanding of railroad practices and terminology. This can best be achieved by persons familiar with the industry.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded for entry of an order requiring RTR and N&W to submit the issues in dispute to arbitration.