Cluster 583894 (1992)
green
· 63 citation events
across 21 courts.
Showing the 35 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199220092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Creative Telecommunications, Inc. v. Breeden (1999)
But see Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992) (determining that where it would “not be necessary for the district court to render a decision on the non-arbitrable issue of the determination of royalty amounts if the arbitrable issues [breach of publishing contract, among others] are decided in favor of the defendants,” litigation on the non-arbitra-ble issues that depend on arbitrable issues "should be stayed pending arbitration”).
green
Cara's Notions, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. (1998)
“Thus, as with any other contract, the parties’ intentions control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability.” Id.; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1460 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel (2007)
Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. 927 ; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Sud's of Peoria, Inc. (2007)
Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. 927 ; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Volkswagen Of America, Inc. v. Sud's Of Peoria, Inc. (2007)
Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. 927 ; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Summit Contractors, Inc. v. Legacy Corner, L.L.C. (2005)
Denial of Motion to Stay “The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992); see also Moses H.
Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. at 939 n. 23; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. at 939 n. 23; Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Synopsys, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (2021)
See Levya, 593 F.2d at 863 (explaining that “sound reasons may exist . . . to 6 support the district court's determination to stay the action under the powers to control its own 7 docket and to provide for the prompt and efficient determination of the cases pending before it” 8 even though the FAA does not mandate a stay for non-arbitrable claims); see also Summer Rain, 9 964 F.2d at 1461 (“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a 10 matt…
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a 10 matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.”
green
Speight v. Lyft, Inc. (2021)
The scope of arbitrable issues is “to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator, ‘[u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.”” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publ’rs, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1459 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting AT&T Techs. v. Comme’ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)).
quoting AT&T Techs. v. Comme’ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)
green
Dalton v. The Dow Chemical Company (2019)
Because the plaintiff is currently arbitrating the issue of whether Austin’s termination of the plaintiff violated the WVHRA, the plaintiff’s aiding and abetting 7 claim “depend[s] on an arbitrable issue.”2 , 964 F.2d at 1461.
See Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992) (“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.”).
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.”
green
Singh v. Interactive Brokers LLC (2016)
Summer Rain, 964 F.2d at 1461.
green
Hinson v. JUSCO CO., LTD. (1994)
Id. at 1459, 1461.
green
Kaczmarek v. Truist Bank, N.A. (2025)
The scope of arbitrable issues is “to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator, ‘[u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.’” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publ’rs, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1459 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting AT&T Techs. v. Commc’ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)).
quoting AT&T Techs. v. Commc’ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986)
green
Eubank v. Camping World RV Sales, LLC (2025)
Va. Jan. 28, 2021) (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1459 (4th Cir. 1992)).
green
Hetrick Companies LLC v. IINK, Corp. (2024)
In short, the caselaw teaches that if non- arbitrable issues depend on arbitrable ones, or if resolution of arbitrable issues would render the district court’s ruling on the non-arbitrable issues unnecessary, “litigation on the non-arbitrable issues should be stayed pending arbitration.” Summer Rain v. The Donning Company/Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992).
Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 20 n.23 (1983)); Summer Rain v. Donning Co. Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992) (“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.”); Am.
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.”
green
Fort, Trustee v. Daileader (2022)
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992), as amended (Jun. 23, 1992) (citing Moses H.
green
Fort, Trustee v. Daileader (2022)
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992), as amended (Jun. 23, 1992) (citing Moses H.
green
Fort, Trustee v. Daileader (2022)
“The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court’s discretion to control its docket.” Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992), as amended (Jun. 23, 1992) (citing Moses H.
green
Lattea v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. (2019)
Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Moses H.
citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 20 n.23
Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 20 n.23 (1983); Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992)).
That decision is one left to the district court ... as a matter of discretion to control its docket.”); In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litig., 505 F.3d 274 , 293 n. 12 (4th Cir.2007); Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1204 (11th Cir.2004); Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992).
green
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apartments (2007)
In making this determination, the trial court should consider several factors, including (1) whether piecemeal litigation of the non-arbitrable claims could "result in inconsistent determinations" of factual and legal issues to be determined by the arbitrator, City & County of Denver, 939 P.2d at 1370 , (2) whether piecemeal litigation will be inefficient because the factual issues to be resolved in litigation overlap with those to be decided by the arbitrator, see Summer Ra…
Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 20 n. 23, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992)).
green
Syncor Intl Corp v. McLeland (1997)
See Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1459 (4th Cir. 1992); see also First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 1924 (1995) ("Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so." (quotations and alter- ations omitted)).
green
Thurl E. Godfrey, by and through his Guardian and Conservator Kerry Moneypenny v. United States of America (2025)
A district court retains “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Summer Rain v. Donning Company Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455 , 1461 (4th Cir. 1992).
green
Sheridan v. Ally Financial, Inc. (2025)
An appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) “does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.” A district court retains “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Summer Rain v. Donning Company Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455 , 1461 (4th Cir. 1992).
green
Knapp v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2023)
A district court retains “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Summer Rain v. Donning Company Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455 , 1461 (4th Cir. 1992).
green
Pharmaniaga Berhad v. EHealthline.com, Inc. (2018)
See , e.g. , Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc. , 964 F.2d 1455 , 1461 (4th Cir. 1992), as amended (June 23, 1992) ("[A]rbitrability is to be determined on an issue-by-issue basis"); see also Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns AB v. Delta Elecs.
green
Hawkins v. Fishbeck (2017)
See Summer Rain v. Donning Co./Publishers, Inc. , 964 F.2d 1455 , 1461 (4th Cir. 1992), as amended (June 23, 1992) ("The decision whether to stay the litigation of the non-arbitrable issues is a matter largely within the district court's discretion to control its docket.").
green
Alamria v. Telcor International, Inc. (1996)
See Summer Rain, 964 F.2d at 1462 n. 6.
green
TERMINIX INTERN. CO. LTD. P'SHIP v. Jackson (1995)
See also Summer Rain v. Donning Company/Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455 (4th Cir.1992).
green
A.M. Castle & Co. v. United Steelworkers of America (1995)
Atkinson, 370 U.S. at 243-45 , 82 S.Ct. at 1321-23 ; Faultless, 513 F.2d at 994; see also Summer Rain v. The Donning Company/Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir.1992) (where arbitrator’s decision on arbitrable issues could render district court’s ruling on non-arbitra-ble issues unnecessary, “litigation on the non-arbitrable issues should be stayed pending arbitration”); Transcaribbean Motors Transport, Inc. v. Union de Tronquistas de P.R., Local 901, 553 F.Supp. …