Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmengreen2 sentences2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). 2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Cyclone Roofing Co. v. David M. LaFave Co.green1 sentence2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
James & Jackson, LLC. v. Willie Gary, LLC.green1 sentence2007Ed. 2d at 785 . {40} This “heavy presumption of arbitrability requires that when the scope of the arbitration clause is open to question, a court must decide the question in favor of arbitration.” Peoples Sec. 4 But see James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76, 78 (Del. 2006) (holding that (1) questions of substantive arbitrability, that is, disputes over the scope of an arbitration provision, are for a court to decide unless there is “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties intended otherwise; and (2) reference to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rules “evid | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capps v. Virrey
green
1 sentence2011App. at 272 , 645 S.E.2d at 829 ; where the entire agreement between the parties reveals their intent to arbitrate the type of dispute at issue in this case; and where “[a]ny uncertainty as to the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration,” In re W.W. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re W.W. Jarvis & Sons
green
1 sentence2011Jarvis & Sons, 194 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lynch v. Hazelwood
green
1 sentence2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen
neutral
2 sentences2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). 2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen
green
2 sentences2010Because federal policy and the policy of this State are the same in this regard, it is appropriate to look to federal cases for guidance in determining whether plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. *405 Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen, 76 N.C. 2010App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985) (citing Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 67-68 , 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961), and quoting Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E.2d 872, 876 (1984), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hobbs Staffing Services, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence2009Any uncertainty as to the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, and “[ujnless it can be said with confident authority that the arbitration clause cannot be read to include the asserted dispute, the court should grant a parties’ motion to arbitrate the particular grievance.” Id. at 225-26, 606 S.E.2d at 710 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wineland v. Marketex International, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1985Plaintiff contends, however, that its unfair and deceptive practices claim pursuant to G.S. 75-1.1 is not proper for arbitration, citing Wineland v. Marketex Intern., Inc., 627 P. 2d 967 (Wash. App. 1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.